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.