Absurdities upon Absurdities

Having re-read the EU negotiating guidelines it is clear that without significant movement by both sides then a so called No Deal is close to being inevitable. It is also clear that the EU has not moved an inch (2.5 centimetres). However no matter what Remainiacs say the referendum result reflected conditions attached to it and what was said – leave Single Market and Customs Union, end jurisdiction of the ECJ and restore control of Borders. It really is the case of something has to give and if nothing does then No Deal results.

Now No Deal is a misnomer as even if we leave without a Deal discussions will continue as to arrangements that will apply. Moreover No Deal does not mean an end to all trade. There may be costs but the average EU tariff is 3% to 5%. So words such as catastrophe, disastrous are completely misplaced!

Perhaps the greatest absurdity is the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland as a No Deal ensures the Republic (as the agent of the EU) will have to introduce Border Controls because the real reason is the protection of the Single Market. Remember to proceed on the basis of mistrust only results in that mistrust being reciprocated.

Then there is Parliamentary absurdity. Can you imagine the EU being kind to us because we have difficulties in the House of Commons – no it (Parliamentary control of Government business) will make it worse and achieve nothing! Even if Parliament does get control how will they progress it if the Government declines to seek an extension to the Article 50 process. Will a Cabal of members seek direct discussions with the EU when they cannot agree among themselves the way forward.

Taking No Deal off the table as any negotiator will tell means you end up as a supplicant which is what Remainiacs want as a precursor to overturning the referendum result.

What is not absurd is to move on!! At the very least this will give business more certainty.

Bring this farce to an end

The Prime Minister has advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament. The Queen has agreed. Some common sense points:
1) most of those wanting a deal with the EU in reality want to stop Brexit - no amount of verbal circumlocution can hide this!
2) If you bother to read the EU's original negotiating position this is the type of document which is presented to a country defeated in a war - read it and weep at the spineless wimps in charge of negotiations.
3) As you will gather I am not prepared to go to these people on my knees;
4) No deal is a misnomer as we all know there will be a deal or deals however it may not happen before we leave on 31st October.
5) As a minimum our Supreme Court must do what it says on the tin therefore it can never be subordinate in any respect to the ECJ. 

Brexit more Juvenile negotiating

Boris Johnson visits Berlin today and Angela Merkel challenges him to come up with a realistic "solution" to the Border problem in Ireland. Apparently he accepts this challenge to be done within 30 days. Does he not realise that anything less than a guarantee of Irish Unification in a short period of time will be vetoed by the Republic government on the spurious grounds of (what the EU really wants) not absolutely securing their Single Market and Customs Union which in itself is a Protectionist Trade Bloc. The Belfast Agreement is a very convenient document here and the EU forgets that consent works both ways. The proposition that any part of the UK remains in the Single Market and Customs Union is precisely the reason it can never be accepted. And if it is doubted that Germany is more concerned with its trading position than Ireland listen very carefully to what Angela Merkel said/says and even more so German business! Moreover a legally binding agreement with the EU cannot be acceptable on the grounds put forward as trust is absent - the Irish Constitution of 1937 is a repudiation of the 1922 Partition Treaty and therefore one has the right to ask how could we know that it would be honoured? Now for those in the UK this may seem a strange if not idiosyncratic position to take. But the facts speak for themselves it is the Remainiacs in the media who do not let these facts be broadcast.
And whilst I am having a blast - how come we are not getting all our money back from the EIB? - can we have a forensic audit (by NAO) of the financial claims being made by the EU - what is the EU going to pay for our intellectual property in relation to GPS which they (especially) the French say we can no longer use post Brexit?
In the adult world the Irish Border question would be dealt with:-
1st November no change in applicable regulations;
post November 2019 if either party i.e. UK or EU wishes to vary the applicable regulations then they are required to consult with the other party in timetabled discussions. Neither party shall have the right to veto the other's proposal!
This, of course, will not happen given that the agenda is not sensible negotiations but multifarious - making it as difficult as possible to leave, punishment and the UK must not be better off etc. etc.
So sadly its no deal and goodbye on 31st October. Notice the media does not report overwhelming support for leaving without a deal (ComRes August 2019). Surely its time for all Journalists to be challenged on which way they voted so that their claims of objectivity and impartiality can be properly assessed - don't hold your breath.

Media mis-representation continues

A short note here to exemplify the bias in our media against any form of Brexit. This morning that preposterous and pompous Adam Boulton had a so called "expert" to talk about a new Conservative Leader and Brexit options. This person was one Stephanie Rickard of LSE. She has written papers on International Trade. She actually said (inter alia) the UK was in weak negotiating position being in the Euro Zone. This was another example of the wish being father to the thought. Indeed every point that the said Adam Boulton made was countered by SR asserting the UK was in a weak position. We are, of course, not in the Euro Zone. Moreover no evidence was produced or adduced to support the assertions made of our alleged weakness. The groupthink in the metropolitan is astounding. This is only one example. Again I would remind you I voted to remain but I am a Democrat unlike many of the (in their minds) elite.

A World of Nonsense

Brexit is so difficult – from a CEO of a multi-Billion £ company (and many others in the same category) and his pay exceeds £5m pa. For that sort of money I would have thought that with such talent he (it is usually he) could have solved Fermat's Last Theorem before breakfast!

A time limited back stop is not a back stop( back stop numerous politicians). Terminological inexactitude – a non time limiting back stop is a full stop! Much beloved of politicians and so called experts whose inexactitudes cloak deliberate deception.

Why don’t you go back to the countries where you came from (Trump) – but I am not racist. However I am prepared to play the race card to secure my base support – probably worse than being an out right racist.

Identity Politics is fashionable but it is part of political discourse it is neither an end in itself nor progressive when it seeks to act exclusively – "only such an identity can act and judge itself" – an Exclusive Brethren determined by by race or colour or religion etc (the writer speaking).

The best defender of religious freedom is a liberal, democratic tolerant society – that is what should be built. The sins of the fathers should not be visited on their sons – victim hood and revenge are no basis for progress of any kind (the writer speaking).

Enough now listen to Radio 3 – Beethoven, Ades and Nielsen.

Brexit Political Journalists and professional Politicians are Drongos

As every day goes by the Journalists and professional politicians in the UK continue to insult the electorate’s intelligence!

Another referendum would not heal a divided country it would entrench division. Moreover any close result would not settle the matter – a decisive result – say 2/3 to 1/3 is not a realistic proposition. A close result would not end the dispute. Hence “Final Say” is a sham, a delusion, a cheat! A referendum with Remain on the ballot paper would confirm the professional politicians insulting view that the people got it wrong first time round so have another go and come up with the right answer! (see "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the of the general public." Scott Adams, American Cartoonist, b.1957).

The quality of debate is abysmal! Setting a firm date at this time to leave is childish. What is grown up is detailing how the UK leaves! The EU is equally juvenile. Saying that the Withdrawal Agreement – rejected three times by the UK Parliament - is not up for negotiation is understandable but surely they must know that that only enhances the possibility of no deal - which we know Germany does not want – although the self obsessed Macron with his delusions of grandeur might mis-step that one.

A sensible UK approach to honestly and genuinely (not too many in Parliament and among the media are doing that which just goes to show how democratic they are!) honouring the result of the Brexit referendum would be for the UK to take control of the timetable and agenda. Challenging the EU to eject us. So say to them we do have a date of 31^st October – are you prepared to re-open the negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement and have genuine and honest discussions with a view to agreement addressing the concerns the UK has. A prompt reply is required despite your holidays. If you prevaricate we will take that as a no! We do not want any more weasel words about EU legal difficulties in relation to Data Protection as to security for example. We expect reciprocity!

We will fulfil are legal obligations as to a financial settlement provided the EU does the same for example in the case of software provision for GPS. Additionally we would require a detailed audit of any claim in relation to the financial settlement to be independently audited and made public! If genuine and honest negotiations are to take place then this could take several months so let us make start and see how things proceed. Since most of the detail is known the UK would review progress at the end of February 2020. If we cannot see sufficient and/or meaningful progress we leave!

As you can see I never go into negotiations as a supplicant – it is all a matter of backbone and intellectual capability. Even as a Remain voter I am not prepared to sell my country down the river.

Goodbye Theresa - Hello ??

This really is an abysmal time in British (English) politics. Shallow self serving grand standing professional politicians and Journalists. Saw Philip Hammond on the Andrew Marr show today and his demeanour was one of defeat. His cover
of seeking to thwart Brexit now gone as May is leaving!  My main concern however is the complete lack of real incisive questioning and thinking! With this damn Brexit thing it is where we go from here not what you said in 2006 etc etc.
Of course shallow and self serving is not confined to Britain - it is rife in many parts of the EU. For example the so called Backstop. Of course the Republic wants a united Ireland, however the worst possible outcome is no deal especially as the UK is not going to erect a border but the EU probably will! Also misunderstanding of what international law says - fly over space is governed by international law and UN conventions not EU law. The question therefore is how long could the Republic in this case, France in the case of perishable products also Belgium, Holland and Denmark and Cars from Germany, Spain and Czech Republic last out without a deal. The UK also has to seriously consider this aspect but we have a history of being bloody minded. There will be a deal whether it will be before we actually leave or sometime after is a moot point. On the UK side it is clear that a revised deal cannot be done before 31st October and if both sides genuinely want a deal it will take us past that date. So stop posturing and grow up! Else hauter/arrogance and complacency will see us all lose.   

An end to Brexit games

I am prompted to write again as the metropolitan spoilt elite - (this time in the form of Andrew Adonis - a member of the un-elected House of Lords)(who by their self absorption, dismissed those outside the M25 as not counting democratically thus leading to the majority Leave vote - still argue for a re-run of the 2016 referendum in the form of "Deal" or Remain. There is a big hole in this view in that the Remain argument has already been run and it lost even though I voted to stay. So to move forward, any referendum, and there are compelling reasons not to have one, not the least of which is that it will increase divisiveness and uncertainty, should only be between whatever "Deal" is concluded or No Deal. Only in this way will we be able to see and end to this nation splitting madness. Remainers have to let go! And let us not go down the economic damage road - Cameron and Osborne effectively trashed the Treasury's competence and independence with their forecasting hyperbole. Leaving the EU will have some economic disadvantages - but anyone with some experience and common sense knows that the time horizon for such forecasts (they are not predictions) is very short. In truth you can make your own future. The research into reasons for voting Leave show predominantly it was the feeling that economically, politically and socially (Eatwell and Goodwin) an elite had cornered the market on influence and power and the majority were being ignored. Thus the EU was perceived as part of that elite (in many respects rightly so). So until this alienation has been effectively dealt with we are left in this purgatory - all the more reason to plot a way out which also properly addresses the concerns of those who are alienated!

A few more thoughts - BREXIT

What is the difference between "crashing out with no deal" and managing transition on trade to WTO terms. Think about it! Who and what is standing in the way of such an orderly exit. The EU's hands are not clean!
Write off an impartial media:
Preposterously pompous Adam Boulton on Sky News (every day - see how he is much softer on Remainers) (how is it elected representatives are labelled Leaver or Remainer when Journalists are not!)
Sally Bundock and Tim Wetherspoon BBC Business News Thursday 28th March constantly interrupting and seeking to prevent TW answering the questions she asked. Emily Maitlis on Newsnight the same day - same tactic.
Robert Peston interviews with Boris Johnson - RP virtually saying you are a "numpty" - in some respects true but it is poor Journalism.
Will Self - conflates what he calls ethnic nationalism with racism. He produces no evidence. He should read Eatwell and Goodwin for a much more reasoned and believable analysis rather than purvey his version of the world in such a superficial, supercilious, gesture ridden, sloganising way. But then he is only like many other commentators (they know who they are).
Probably the most important attributes of an independent, sovereign nation are:
a) its laws are made in that country and its Supreme Court determines outcomes according to domestic law;
b) it does not accept coercion or restraints in International Relations whether economic, political or heaven forbid military but operates on the basis of negotiated reciprocity;
c) its electorate and its representatives are genuinely inclusive - not as has been in the past preaching inclusivity whilst practising the opposite - see Tony Blair and most Conservative governments;
d) the electorate has to have confidence that it is being supported by its government and that government is not beholden to business and moneyed interests see Tony Blair and most Conservative governments.
Have a great weekend!

More EU games

The House of Commons rejects by massive majorities on two occasions the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. Now in search of avoiding blame for negotiations breaking down it says extend the BREXIT date. However what has not been identified by our supine and remainiac media (there are honourable exceptions) is that the EU continues to insist that the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with PM May must stand in any settlement. Whilst a europhile and Remain voter I am not so delusional as many politicians on both sides of the Channel appear that this only delays the inevitable! The Withdrawal Agreement should be rejected again because:
a) a common sense interpretation of the so-called backstop is that a foreign power may effectively annexe part of our Union;
b) moreover since that is the case (ask any Irish Republican what is an acceptable solution to the problem and look for an answer?). Puerility reigns when the only answer you get is "the UK created the problem so it is up to them to find a solution".
c) the so-called divorce settlement has not been subject to rigorous examination - it is a fine!
d) Sovereign Countries have a Supreme Court which does exactly what it says on the tin - anything else such as proposed in the Withdrawal Agreement cannot be acceptable to independent sovereign countries.
This is yet another charade where to EU seeks to distance itself from blame when negotiations break down. When they do breakdown, as in most negotiations, both sides bear responsibility. In the UK PM May will resign but Barnier is likely to be promoted. Says it all really as to what sort of organisation the EU is!

Brexit – Will Parliament be both witless and spineless

As we reach the stage where decisions have to be taken rather than be avoided it is important to be clear.

1) Taking no deal off the table is a charade! We all know that there will be a deal what is not known is the exact content and when though; if Parliament and the EU have any sense it should be in a matter of weeks rather than months. (It really takes a massive leap of faith to believe this is any way helpful) (The PM’s incompetence has had the consequence of making Corbyn’s and Starmers’s policy believable - that shows how out of touch Parliament is)

2) Will delaying exit improve the relative position of either side to the negotiations and does this not mean more uncertainty for business. Without doubt delaying with no deal off the table gives much greater negotiating leverage to the EU. Whereas leaving with no deal puts the UK in a much stronger position! (and business can move ahead on that basis).

3) The EU is only interested in the UK having less economic freedom, continuing to receive £bn every year from the UK, enjoying unconditional security guarantees without payment and the UK being punished for the electorate exercising its democratic right!

4) If the Irish government was really interested in its country’s economic stability it would not have insisted on the so called “backstop” (in reality a full stop – grammarians will know the difference and it is significant!) gleefully grasped by the EU as another stick with which to beat the UK.

5) The EU has an almost fanatical attachment to the Single Market and its protection – this is is not politics nor business – its Theology – a very dangerous thing in negotiations.

6) If the “end game” is another referendum Parliament needs to think very carefully as to what it means for the future of our democracy (the elite says you got it wrong so have another go and get it right this time). Whether it would end the question – probably not. Would it unite or further divide the country – I think we know the answer to that!

Brexit - The Media Nonsense Circus goes on!

The 29th March is a date in the calendar. It is not a date when the sky might fall in nor the end of the world! Ask yourself whether the EU and the UK would not negotiate if we just left on 29th. Of course we would. Scrub the hyperbole and next ask yourself why all of a sudden the EU is getting anxious about the UK leaving without a deal. Because if that happened the UK would be in a stronger negotiating position! Yes there might be disruption but it would then be seen as deliberate by either party. Think about it do we all really want that. Now those who seek to (as they put it) "take no deal off the table" are exposed as that proposal is part of a prospective narrative that goes like this:
a) take no deal off the table;
b) Parliament deadlocked over any prospective deal;
c) seek extension to Article 50;
d) propose "People's Vote/Final Say" which is really a proxy to seek to remain;
e) another referendum where Remain is on the ballot paper and split Leave vote with the deal or no deal also on the ballot paper.
Well I am not falling for it and the stronger negotiating position we have with a smug/arrogant EU the better!

BREXIT break the Impasse

I am a Remain voter and Labour Party member but also a proud to be British/English. History is likely to determine that these negotiations have not been handled well by either side. It is almost a truism in my experience that professional politicians are appalling negotiators confusing pragmatism with principle – but hey ho after 50 years of negotiating experience I would like to offer a suggestion as to how we may all get out of this prospective muddle. I say muddle as an objective assessment of so called “No deal” shows it is disruptive but by no means a catastrophe!

In any negotiation having control of the timetable and agenda conveys considerable advantage. We have been negotiating with the fag end of the present Commission and the European Parliament which will be new from July this year (new Commission also).

So the framework of an offer we could make is:

a) that in regard to matters agreed thus far in the Withdrawal Agreement with the exception of the Northern Ireland “backstop” they remain on the table as is up to 29^th March 2020. (It is a subtle difference but a backstop is not the same as a full stop – ergo it can be time limited!);

b) the UK position on the “backstop” is that it must be time limited (ending no later than 31^st December 2024) or that the UK has a unilateral right to exit the arrangement on the expiry of 6 months notice prior to 31^st December 2024.

c) the UK will not introduce any border controls in Northern Ireland other than those existing for the period up to 29^th March 2020;

d) the UK will voluntarily follow all reasonable EU regulations in the period up to 29^th March 2020.

Domestically I believe this approach would have considerable support. 
Update after Lunch:

I am a Remain voter and Labour Party member but also proud to be British/English. History is likely to determine that these negotiations have not been handled well by either side. It is almost a truism in my experience that professional politicians are appalling negotiators confusing pragmatism with principle – but hey ho after 50 years of negotiating experience I would like to offer a suggestion as to how we may all get out of this prospective muddle. I say muddle as an objective assessment of so called “No deal” shows it is disruptive but by no means a catastrophe!

At this time context is of critical importance. Both the UK and EU are running down the clock to 29^th March in the hope that one or the other will give in. Quite apart from the puerile nature of these posturings they rarely work even where the media and establishment as in this case continue with their unfounded suggestions of disaster. We have a situation where Parliament has overwhelmingly rejected the proposed Withdrawal Agreement. There is also a Parliamentary majority to seek alternative arrangements to the “backstop”. There appears to be growing support for leaving the EU on WTO terms (Poll Sunday 3^rd February greater than 40%). Both UK and EU law say BREXIT will happen at 2300 hrs. on 29^th March. There will be a new European Parliament and EU Commission in July 2019. A question arises as to whether those new bodies would take the same view. In addition would Barnier, Juncker et al want to go down in EU history as massive failures – which they would be by not being able to reach a deal with the UK. It needs to be remembered in the real (grown up) world both sides in negotiations are responsible for success or failure – apportioning amounts of blame does not get you anywhere! All of this leads me to the conclusion that the UK’s negotiating position is getting stronger not weaker (wait for screams, hysteria and hyperbole from Remainiacs).

In any negotiation having control of the timetable and agenda conveys considerable advantage. We have been negotiating with the fag end of the present Commission and European Parliament. There will be a new EU Commission and Parliament this July. This new Parliament is likely to have substantially increased representation of Eurosceptics.

So the framework of an offer we could make is:

a) that in regard to matters agreed thus far in the Withdrawal Agreement with the exception of the Northern Ireland “backstop” they remain on the table (but no payments to be made)(It is a subtle difference but a backstop is not the same as a full stop - ergo it can be time limited);

b) the UK position on the “backstop” is that it must be time limited (ending no later than 31^st December 2024) or that the UK has a unilateral right to exit the arrangement on the expiry of 6 months notice prior to 31^st December 2024;

c) the UK will not introduce any border controls in Northern Ireland other than those existing at this time for the period up to 29^th March 2020;

d) the UK will voluntarily follow all reasonable EU regulations in the period up to 29^th March 2020;

e) in respect of all other matters relating to the relationship between the UK and EU there shall complete reciprocity.

Domestically I believe this approach would have considerable support.