Start from here? We certainly don’t want to end here
With apologies to Rusters of a nervous disposition, today I return to the subject of Brexit following the continuation of the Prime Minister’s intense not to say frenzied campaign to convince the country of the splendid nature of her ‘deal’ with the EU in advance of the UK’s departure from 29th March next year.
As an opening taster – for those who enjoy political punditry – I begin by providing a link to a review of yesterday’s proceedings in the House of Commons by one of my favourite hacks, the waspish Quentin Letts, who these days combines his occasional exposures of Establishment arrogance, hypocrisy and pomposity with outings as his employer’s theatre critic – see here, as appears today upon the website of the – DAILY MAIL
Meanwhile, for those readers who have just returned from their annual six-month holidays in the Maldives in a state of blissful ignorance or, alternatively, have been holding their hands over their ears since June 2016 whilst exclaiming “La-la-la-la-la-la …” ad infinitum in an attempt to block out the ubiquitous blow-by-blow daily media reports of Brexit developments, here’s a straightforward summary of the current position:
Putting to one side for the moment the fact that historically it has never paid more than lip service to the principle of democracy and ordinarily only takes it into account at election-time, to achieve its goal the Establishment has been forced into the open in order to deploy arguments based upon the themes that the gullible electorate was (1) “lied to”; (2) too thick, racist, stupid and lacking in common sense to appreciate what it was voting for; (3) genetically incapable of understanding the implications that would flow from leaving the EU; and (4) needs to learn that going along with whatever the Establishment says is always in its – that is, the electorate’s – own best interests.
Impartial observers, of course, here need to bite their lips and refrain from pointing out that Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of holding the 2016 EU Referendum and that – at the General Election that took place shortly afterwards – both main parties (Tory and Labour) made solemn manifesto commitments to respect its result. Furthermore, after said General Election – on the face of it – the House of Commons was overwhelming populated by those that had supposedly campaigned upon the promise to carry out Brexit.
This, naturally, counted for nothing because in the game the Establishment plays – as Harold Wilson once famously put it – “A week is a long time in politics” which, in real-speak, translates as “But that was then and this is now …”.
After all, we should not forget that, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, politics is (and has always been) all about pragmatism.
By now the Establishment had got its knickers into a right royal twist.
Never mind the fact that it had done its best to ‘fix’ the result of the EU Referendum by spending £7 million or more in opening the Referendum campaign by sending to every household a Government pamphlet setting a distinctly one-eyed review of what leaving the EU would mean and all but stating in bold underlined text that anyone tempted to voted Leave would be regarded by everyone else as certifiably insane and therefore subject to scornful ridicule for the rest of their life.
Scaremongering stories were spread that automatic recessions, pestilence, flooding, plague and sexual disease would spread through the length and breadth of the UK if the “wrong” result came about.
Which, of course, it did.
And so we have ended up where we are today.
Last weekend Mrs May returned from Brussels – as did Neville Chamberlain from Munich in 1938 – waving a piece of paper that she maintains is the best she could do and is so obviously “good for Britain in the circumstances” that nothing more need be said. Except that she has now immediately embarked upon an all-out media blitz to do quite the opposite.
Meanwhile in the House of Commons it seems that she has pleased nobody on either side of the argument.
It has the unique distinction of uniting both Remainers and Leavers in the view, albeit for different reasons, that staying in the EU would be preferable to accepting its litany of inadequacies, waffle, lack of adherence to basic principles, ambiguities and (apparently, on the face of it) ultimate EU control over an array of specifics still to be negotiated on which an infinite number of UK surrenders will be required in order to make any further progress.
On top of which, even putting the most positive spin on where it might possibly leave the UK in a Brexit final analysis, the UK would end up far worse off than if it was to remain in the EU.
Let’s just dwell on that for a moment and assume it is true.
In June 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU. On the deal that Mrs May is now doing her utmost to force through the UK’s political system – against all the odds, it must be admitted – the UK would almost certainly be worse off, both economically and geo-politically, than if it was to remain in the EU.
Don’t get me wrong – the Brexiteers don’t come out of this exactly smelling of roses. During the EU Referendum they also did their utmost to hoodwink the electorate.
What price now the airy promises of prominent Tory Brexiteers David Davies and Liam Fox that a comprehensive “free trade” deal with the EU would be as easy to achieve as falling off a log?
Don’t ask me to justify my attitude, but I’m already strapping myself into my favourite arm chair, ordering the popcorn and beer, and looking forward immensely to watching next month’s Brexit events unfold …
