The Brexit Crisis

I believe that the UK would be wealthier, stronger and more at peace with itself if it had never joined the “Common Market” in 1973. There are many people who agree with me and many, who disagree. But there is no way of proving, who is right and who is wrong. It’s a matter of personal judgement and belief.

Because I hold the views that I do, I voted to leave the Common Market in the referendum of 1975 and to leave the European Union in the referendum of 2016.

In truth, the referendum of 1975 was nothing to do with following the will of the electorate. It was a device, introduced by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, to unite the Labour party, which had been returned to Government the year before and was seriously divided by the issue of Europe.

Harold Wilson was an astute and streetwise operator, who knew that the British electorate was strongly in favour of joining the Common Market. At that time, the UK had a decimated economy, in the aftermath of two world wars; and had lost it’s place in the world, following the disintegration of the British Empire. If nothing else, joining the Common Market gave the UK a sense of direction and purpose. Wilson knew this and knew that he’d win the referendum decisively. And, of course, he did, which enabled the Labour Party to move on and become largely pro Europe.

The 2016 referendum was instigated by Prime Minister David Cameron, who tried to unite the Conservative Party as Wilson had united Labour. But Cameron was much less streetwise than Wilson and he didn’t have Wilson’s instinctive understanding of the British electorate. Despite the huge vote in favour of Europe in 1975, many people had become increasingly concerned by the ever closer economic and political integration of the European Union, particularly following the Maastricht treaty in 1992. Support for EU membership had fallen significantly, making the outcome of the 2016 referendum anything but a foregone conclusion. Sadly, not only did Cameron’s strategy totally fail to unite the Conservative Party, it resulted in the entire nation being split down the middle in a way that we haven’t seen since the English civil war between 1642 and 1651.

The bitterness, aggression and intolerance emanating from each side towards the other is not just heartbreaking but is doing far more damage to our economy, our values, our way of life and our reputation in the world than almost any possible outcome of Brexit, from remaining in the EU to crashing out without a deal.

At times of national upheaval such as this, there is a need for strong, decisive leadership. In the first world war, we had David Lloyd-George. In the second world war we had Winston Churchill. Today, in Theresa May, we have a Prime Minister, who is decent, honest, extremely intelligent, hardworking and totally dedicated to doing her absolute best for the people of this country  but she isn’t a leader. She isn’t able, through sheer force of character, to unite the political establishment in the way that Churchill did. As a result her party remains divided as does the country.

As leader of the opposition, we have Jeremy Corbyn. But far from being a unifying figure, he has divided the Labour Party by engineering it’s takeover by the far left and he has become a divisive figure within the country as a whole. Perhaps more importantly, he has reached the age of nearly 70 without ever holding any significant political office and having been a perpetual rebel on the back benches for most of his career. He appears hopelessly indecisive, driven by ideology rather than pragmatism and, whilst he undoubtedly revels in the adoration of the far left, he fails to inspire many people beyond his own clique.

Without leadership, the outcome of the current Brexit crisis will be a disaster for this country, irrespective of what that outcome is. Like many millions of Brits, I feel completely let down by the political establishment. The rancour, the arrogance, the hypocrisy, the backstabbing, the aggression, the bloody mindedness and the sheer stupidity being displayed in both houses of Parliament is beyond anything I have ever witnessed in my lifetime and it is undermining everything for which this country stands.

I’m not making a case for or against Brexit and I’m not making a case for or against this government. But I am making a case for our 650 elected members of Parliament to get us out of the mess, into which they have put us. That will require a much higher level of integrity than is currently the case, much greater respect for differing opinions and a willingness to compromise. Above all, it is time for them to find a new Prime Minister,  behind whom they can unite.

 

Jeremy Corbyn 007

People’s views about Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged spying activities appear to depend on their own political sympathies. Those on the left, maintain it’s all a load of nonsense, whipped up by the right wing media; and want to kill the debate. Those on the right, say there must be some truth in it somewhere; and want to keep the story alive.

In reality, it’s highly unlikely that, as an obscure, left wing MP, which is what he was at the time, Corbyn would have had access to any significant secrets that he could trade. So the likelihood of him being of any material use to the communist Eastern block countries, at that time, is minuscule.

The problem with Corbyn is that, like so many ideologically driven people, he’s naive. His past associations with this Czechoslovakian spy, with Hezbollah, with the IRA, all point to this. He maintains that he’s always worked for peace and I’m sure he believes that. And in reality, he’s probably never done any harm to the peace process; although it’s unlikely he’s ever made any significant contribution either. He’s just gone off on a limb, on his own, doing what he wants to do, with little or no regard for official government policy. And it’s probably this rebel image, combined with his polite soft manner that has endeared him to so many people, since his election as leader of the Labour Party.

The real question we all need to be asking is not whether Jeremy Corbyn is a spy but, “would he be a good prime minister? And to answer that question, I believe we must revisit the issue of his naivety.

If we think about Labour’s current spending plans, they’re aspirations that he simply wouldn’t be able to deliver. After taking office, he’d either realise that was the case and, as a result, disappoint his followers or he’d try to deliver them and wreck the economy in the process, thereby increasing hardship and poverty for the many but not the few. The socialist utopia he promotes is an impossible undeliverable dream. There is not a single example, anywhere in the world, where it has ever succeeded.

On the single biggest issue of our time, namely Brexit, Corbyn doesn’t appear to have a strategy, other than to oppose whatever the Government says or does. When he does comment on Brexit he seems to think that the EU would be very nice and co-operative with him, whereas they’re not with Theresa May. Again, it’s delusional. Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer is a highly intelligent and very astute man, who must be tearing his hair out, having to cope with the vagaries and indecision coming from Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is simply not up to the job of Prime Minister. He’s not intelligent enough, he’s not decisive enough, he’s far too naive and he’s a puppet, whose strings are being pulled by Jon Lansman and Momentum. But he’s not a spy.

 

 

Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit; What’s the Difference?

The media seem to be fixating on the question of a hard Brexit or soft Brexit. But how real is this apparent conflict?

The Conservative and Labour Parties accounted for around 83% of the popular vote at the last election and the polls suggest that public opinion remains at similar levels today. Both parties contain a majority of MPs that were on the side of “Remain” during the 2016 referendum; both parties accepted the result of the referendum; and both parties are now committed to leaving the EU in April 2019. So, one way or another, it seems likely to happen.

The essential difference between a hard and soft Brexit is whether we leave both the “Single Market” and the “Customs Union”. The hard Brexit outcome would mean leaving both; the soft Brexit outcome would mean remaining in both.

The single market requires the free movement from one EU member country to another of goods, people, services and capital (the four freedoms). It removes barriers to trade and harmonises or unifies national rules at EU level.

For the UK to remain in the single market, it would require either the EU to agree that the UK could dispense with the requirement for the free movement of people; or for the UK to agree to retain the free movement of people. Realistically, neither of these is going to happen. The free movement of people is one of the prime founding principles of the EU, which is bound by those principles. For the UK the free movement of people was one of the main reasons for the Brexit vote winning the referendum. So there is a complete impasse.

The customs union states that all trade in goods between EU countries must be free of customs duties and that member states must apply a common customs tariff for goods imported from outside the EU. For the UK to remain in the customs union would require either the EU to agree that the UK could negotiate it’s own trade agreements with countries outside the EU; or for the UK to accept that is couldn’t. Again, neither is going to happen. The EU has no incentive whatsoever to agree that the UK should be free to negotiate its own trade arrangements with countries outside the customs union. On the other hand, for the UK, the ability to negotiate its own trade agreements outside the customs union is essential, if it is to develop its international trade throughout the world. So, once again there is a complete impasse.

Whether we like it or not, the simple facts of life are that the choice we have is to remain in the EU, as we are now or leave the EU and this means leaving the single market and the customs union. Leaving the EU and remaining in the single market and customs union isn’t a realistic option. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t negotiate a non tariff trade agreement with the EU; and it doesn’t mean we’ll need to establish customs controls at borders because we already have them, as we’re not part of the Schengen Agreement. Although we will need to find a solution for the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Realistically, the argument over a hard or soft Brexit is meaningless. The real argument is between those who support Brexit and those who oppose it. We live in a democracy and those who oppose Brexit have every right to do so and every right to campaign for their views to prevail. However, by campaigning for a so called soft Brexit, they are campaigning for something that can’t happen and undermining the government’s position in the process. They should be honest and campaign for NO Brexit. We must remember that we are still in the EU; so no Brexit means no change and that seems much more realistic than campaigning for a change that can never happen.

 

 

By Europe Divided

I’m a Baby Boomer, born in 1948 and, in my nearly seventy years of life, as a British subject, I can’t remember a time when our nation was so divided. The issue of Europe and our membership of the EU has pitted young against old, cosmopolitan against rural and region against region. It’s fractured families, friendships and communities; and has created monumental splits within both of our two largest political parties.

Many people are critical of the Cameron government’s decision to hold a referendum in the first place, accusing it of pandering to it’s right wing and hard core Brexiteers. But this is too simplistic because it ignores the considerable anti EU views that have existed within the wider British population, since we joined, what was then, the Common Market in 1973; but particularly since the Maastricht treaty of 1992, which projected the EU towards ever closer political union.

The emergence of UKIP has also been extremely influential. Whilst it has failed to gain a significant parliamentary presence, it has gathered a groundswell of support as a single issue political party.

The problem for the government of the day was that this groundswell has been growing rapidly and, as we now know, it hasn’t been coming from just traditional Tory voters, it has as much, if not more, support from within the ranks of traditional Labour voters. You could argue that Cameron was the unlucky Prime Minister, who happened to be in office when it all came to a head. But in truth, if Cameron hadn’t called the referendum, when he did, it would only have delayed it; and a future government, of whatever political persuasion, would have had its hand forced, within a comparatively short time.

This anti EU feeling isn’t unique to the UK. Many other European countries have a growing level of discontent with the EU. The UK is merely the first to bring that discontent to a head.

The EU has worked extremely well for some people in most member countries but it has not worked at all well for others and this is at the route of the problem. The EU bureaucracy and individual country Governments have ignored those people, for whom the EU hasn’t worked. Throughout Europe and North America, we have seen the rise of an intellectual liberal elite that has permeated the upper echelons of politics, public services, financial services and business and commerce. Overwhelming, these are decent people working incredibly hard in very difficult and challenging roles. They do a huge amount of good work, from which we all benefit enormously. However, they have become too detached from the wider populous and imbued with a certain arrogance that says, “we know better than you what is best for you; therefore, we don’t need to listen to you”. As a result huge swathes of people feel ignored, disenfranchised and powerless to do anything to put matters right.

The rise of Donald Trump in The US and the success of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK have happened because they are talking to the people that the establishment has ignored. It’s interesting that Trump is from the far right and Corbyn the far left. There have been all sorts of complex and convoluted reasons put forward for their success; but actually it’s very simple and they both know it. They offer hope to those, who feel disenfranchised and have no hope.

Based on past experience, it seems unlikely that either the far right or the far left are capable of delivering the kind of society that most of us want. Most of us in the western democracies gravitate from centre right to centre left. In the UK that could be described as One Nation Tories to Social Democrats. But the detachment of the Liberal Elite is creating fertile conditions for more extreme politics.

Getting back to the EU issue, we’re not in a good place at the moment. The divisions between us are creating an almost impossible position for any Government to resolve. This is probably the most serious threat to our nation since the second world war and, unless we start to come together and unite, the UK will enter a period of very serious decline. In principle, the UK could almost certainly look forward to a great future either inside or outside the EU. We are an industrious and innovative nation that has been a world leader for centuries because of our ability to adapt. But if we keep fighting between ourselves, there is only one outcome possible, namely serious national decline.

Given where we are, it seems inevitable that we will leave the EU. But there needs to be compromise. No one will get everything they want but we’ll all get some of the things we want.

It’s time for the silent majority from One Nation Tories to Social Democrats to make its collective voice heard and to unite so that we can achieve an outcome that enables our country to thrive.

The treat this nation faces, is the greatest since the second world war. In those far off days, my parent’s generation put aside their differences and united. Their fortitude and determination won through and secured a future for those of us alive today. We owe it to them and we owe it to our children and grandchildren to do the same now.

The current government may not be everyone’s choice. It may have lost the confidence of many of our people through its botched general election. But it is the government and it faces a massive challenge. We must put aside our differences and support it rather than continually undermining everything it tries to do. When Brexit is complete and our country is secure, we can return to our tribal politics just as my parents’ generation did in 1945. If we don’t do that, our future will be bleak, whoever holds the key to number 10.