At the core of power

We have a new leader who, after four months in the job is showing all the signs of being a complete control freak.

Faced with an undeliverable and ill-defined agenda - Brexit - with no public mandate, no manifesto worthy of the name and with a pack of snapping turtles around her ankles, she seems to be holding all decisions to herself.

The early days do not look good. There has been a significant and worrying shift to the right exemplified by the rhetoric about migrants, the have-nots, health tourists. She has done nothing to discourage this beyond meaningless platitudes about 'listening' (and where have we heard that before).

People have dared to ask 'Please, Miss, can we know what you are actually planning to do about this Brexit thing? Are we to be in the Single Market or not? Are we to allow free movement of people or not? What will be the economic consequences? How are we going to pay off the National Debt (which is already horrendously large) if the benefits of Brexit (if any) are not going to kick in for five years (or more)? Are we about to jump off a very high cliff with a millstone around our necks or not? 

These questions are not allowed. They are certainly not answered.

No politician likes being questioned or challenged but how they react varies. If Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian is to be believed then only the left plays by the rules. Remember Blair's attempt to create a 'big tent' using people from across the 'political divide' to head up task forces. This would be unthinkable for a right-wing government like ours.

The right simply stonewalls: 'You lost get over it' or 'There will be no running commentary'. How dare we ask what on earth is going on?

As we all know, the primary purpose of the referendum was to heal a deep-seated rift in the Tory party. We, the voters, were allowed to pass an opinion which surprised us all and led to the fall of one Prime Minister, to be replaced by another from, yes, the same 'One Party'.

The vision of the Tory Party has always been clear: that they have a divine right to rule. The role of the Party has always been more important than the needs of the country (although they say they have our best interests at heart).

In a one party state, any disagreements between wings of the Party are kept behind closed doors and the public can know about Policy once the Party has resolved matters. It is not a matter for general debate or discussion.

Anyone who objects to Policy is vilified, dismissed as 'lightweights', and/or insulted. It does not take long to find the insulting adjectives in any article in the Daily Mail.

The judges dared to express a perfectly reasonable opinion on a matter of law and were vilified by the right wing press/bullies, to the extent that Gina Miller who brought the High Court action was unable to go out of her house for fear of being attacked.

Whenever people like Blair or Clegg talk about Brexit, Leavers react with sentences starting 'Why listen to the man who ...': substitute 'illegal war' or 'student fees' as appropriate. Why should these two men, both experienced politicians, be denied their right to think, or to have and express an opinion just because of their past decisions? In any sane world, they would be listened to as actually knowing what they are talking about. Let he who is without sin ...

The key problem is that they are not 'of the Party'. Trump is absolved of any past errors as he is 'one of us' (right wing) with whom 'we need to get along', just as Boris is tolerated for his misdemeanours.

The right does not grace Corbyn with insults for fear of drawing attention to a man they regard as beneath contempt.

The right answers any probing question with lines like 'We are not for turning', 'This is splendid for the UK' etc ... simple mind-numbing dull press releases re-iterating the Leader's thoughts are so anodyne to ensure they do not get the issuing Department (Truss, Grayling ...) into trouble.

The right does not seek to bring people together. It tells people to 'unite' with the unspoken addition 'behind the Party'. Believe in the Party. Trust the Party. Pure Orwell or Huxley.

At the heart of the web is a control freak: at the core of power.

We do not have to look very far for a model of what it could all look like. Just read Stephen McDonnell's article on the BBC website about the recent Plenum in China and ask yourself if it does not all sound horribly familiar.

A single Party which decides everything behind closed doors. A Party with a leader 'at the core' of its work, beginning to build a cult of personality. A Party which controls the media and brooks no opposition, no questions.

No wonder we are so keen to do business with China.

Developing trade agreements

Theresa May discovered what fun it is negotiating trade agreements on her visit to India last week.

Having arrived with a package of 'investments' in her briefcase which she could 'announce' she found herself up against fairly stoney-faced Indian politicians pointing out the difficulties of obtaining visas for the UK, especially amongst students.

The Times of India called her Muddled May and pointed out that A UK-India free trade agreement would be a non-starter as long as the visa issue isn't sorted.

This was echoed by one of the participants, Keith Burnett Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield who said he was 'truly ashamed' by the trip with entries from Indian students significantly down because of the desire to kick them out the moment they had graduated.

No 10 announced, of course, that the mission had been 'a stunning success' and went on to say that 'successful high-value travellers, of the kind most countries are keen to welcome, would have the extra help and advice for their families and themselves.'

What is it that TM does not understand? The revolt by the people of the UK in the referendum is remarkably similar to the rebellion in the USA: against the rich and powerful. Yet here she and her people are encouraging 'successful high-value travellers'. Let's forget the ordinary people, we only want the monied elites. No, no and no!

She was going to govern for all people, remember.

The 'host of commercial deals' that were due to be signed involved investments of various forms, several of them investments into India, witness:

• a £1.2 million joint venture initiative between the Pandrol Group UK and Rahee Group in India – to set up a state-of the-art manufacturing plant in India, supplying metro and Indian rail projects across the country
• a £15 million high-end imaging and diagnostic centre in Chennai to be developed by Lyca Health UK
• a £350 million investment from British start-up, Kloudpad, into high-tech electronics manufacturing in Kochi. The company will create a manufacturing facility and a highly advanced research and development facility allowing them to expand their global reach

These, we are told 'are expected to create 1,370 jobs in the UK, providing a real boost to our workforce and financial security for hundreds of families across the country'.

Will someone explain how investment in India will 'provide a real boost to our workforce in, say, Sunderland who cannot get jobs?

Toddler tantrums Part 1

The government lost the (first round?) Of the legal challenge to ensure that parliament is involved in discussions about Brexit preventing Theresa May claiming some divine right to go ahead and trigger Article 50 by executive decree.

The Brexiteers threw a hissy fit. The Mail (Express, Sun and, to a certain extent, the Telegraph) slammed the judges as 'undemocratic' Euro-philes and went on to dig into their private lives as though this was in any way relevant.

The 'Lord Chancellor' Liz Truss excelled herself by producing a pathetically weak tweet - is this how Ministers put out authoritative statements nowadays? - too late, limply reminding us that judges are independent and objective. She probably did not want to upset her leader by showing too much robust support for an independent judiciary that her oath of office required her to uphold. 

One lawyer-blogger called for her resignation.

No Minister has had the guts to comment on the vile nature of the article. Challenged on her way to India, Theresa May was content merely to comment on the need for a free press. Free to spread lies then.

TM went on to say that the government would be challenging the ruling and was confident of winning. She would not be derailed from her March timetable.

The question no one seems to be asking is why she is challenging the case. What is wrong with accepting the finding and re-adjusting the timetable? Why risk the inevitable egg on her face if she loses the appeal?

I guess she has already drafted the letter to the EU and was itching to send it off in order to get the Hard Brexiteers off her back and to draw the Ukip members back into the Tory fold before that party found a new leader and perhaps even policies.

'You may have gathered that the British people have (following a campaign of lies and deceit, very stupidly) decided that they would be better off outside the club and so please take this as notice that we will be leaving in two years time, as per Article 50 ... so long, and now we can have our fish back, TMx'

If the courts think she ought to go through parliament then why not do so? What is the risk? It would look good and there would be a perfectly credible response to the rabid hordes. 

'Sorry chums, we wanted parliament to be sovereign and so we had better let them start as they mean to go on.The timetable will have to be put back but we are committed to getting there so let's make sure that poisonous Clegg and his merry men do not back us into the corner they are preparing for us.

'If anyone stands in our way, or massacres our Bill with amendments, then we will simply call a general election and ask the British people to give us some MPs who will do as they are told.'

Putting back the March date might even work to her advantage. A six month delay would get the German and French elections out of the way and still leave her a clear two years before the 2020 election. If she submitted the Article 50 letter at the end of 2017, she would be going to the country in 202o saying 'I have delivered the Brexit you wanted. What a Good Girl am I. Now can I have another five-year term (only this time you will actually get a chance to vote for me)?' 

What is wrong with that? 

Surely she cannot think she might find herself in 2020 with the UK out of Europe, no credible trade agreements in place, a monumental recession and government debt spiralling even further out of control ... No, surely not. 

It all smacks of the control-freak thwarted: a toddler tantrum by someone who likes to have her own way: the dictator who came against the rules.

Enough rope to hang themselves?

The High Court has ruled that Parliament must have the last word on matters which affect domestic laws and the rights of citizens. Submitting Article 50 does both of those things and therefore Parliament must be involved.

The government will naturally appeal to the Supreme Court and we will see if they win in the next round, while licking our lips at the irony of the EU Court possibly becoming involved in the issue.

The judgement has produced a horrific outpouring of ill-informed barrack-room lawyers claiming the judges are unelected (!?), over-riding the will of the people ... Oh the irony that the Brexiteers were so keen to live the EU that Parliament could 'take back sovereignty'.

Then there was the sexist and racist stuff about one of the judges being gay and the person who funded the case being born in Guyana. Shock horror! Is this the best 'reasoned argument' they can find?

Nick Clegg continues to do well as an opponent of Brexit, playing a long and politically sensible game. You can tell that his opponents are worried by their vituperative comments about him and the words they try to put into his mouth.

He was his typically clear self using three familiar phrases about the referendum:

• It showed a direction but not a destination. We have no idea where we are actually going (although someone no doubt has a plan that they don;t want to share with anyone else) 
• It showed what people do not like but it did not show what they do like
• It was based on mendacious lies

His view of the way forward is clear:

• Parliament must be sovereign. It is hard to disagree with this, despite the attempts of Theresa May and her cohorts to act like Tudor monarchs
• Parliament should be told what the government is seeking to achieve. Are we going to be in the single market or outside it? Are we going to allow free movement of people or not (almost certainly not)? How much will this all cost us?
• Parliament should have a vote on this before Article 50 is submitted
• Parliament should then be permitted to review what is actually on offer at the end of the negotiations and vote on whether it meets the objectives and whether it is acceptable
• If the government fails to convince Parliament then it must return to the people for their view

It is hard to argue with this as a sensible and parliamentary way of doing things, high risk though it is. If, as Nick no doubt believes, the EU will give a simple round 'No' to the proposals, then the game will be up. It gives the Three Blind Mice enough rope to hang themselves.

Risky? Probably but is is more of a plan than any we have heard so far from the government.

Another week in the madhouse

Another week has gone by with the government stonewalling every attempt to find out What Is Going On with their 'brilliant' and 'ambitious' Brexit plans.

As we all know, the referendum was called to attempt to heal, or cauterize, the split in the Tory party. Our new PM is continuing business as usual, refusing to reveal anything. This gives the illusion that she is competent and in control before we start the real hard graft of negotiation.

Her real objective is to be all things to all men, thus avoiding further splits within the Tory party. Thankfully, people like Ken Clarke are harder to silence.

In reality of course, she is completely out of her depth and surrounded by three blind mice pulling her every which way.

Bored journalists, starved of news from insiders, are trawling through the archives and finding statement after statement showing that the leading protagonists have been changing their views like weather vanes. Who was it told a Goldman Sach's audience earlier this year that leaving the EU would be an economic disaster? Oh yes, it was the former Home Secretary, now PM. So she can stand with Boris on the 'changed your position a little haven't you dear' step. Why should I believe anything you say? Integrity? Forget it.

Over the last few days the fog has occasionally lifted but then collapsed in a mess.

Nicola Sturgeon joined a meeting at No 10 to open discussions about the way forward. She came out and described the talks as deeply frustrating, declaring that there was no noticeable plan. To add embarrassment to the government's position, she then reported to the Scottish Parliament that the so-called hotline to the Brexit department had taken 36 hours to return her call. Do you think we are as casual with the Nuclear War hotline?

John McDonnell, for Labour, echoed Nicola's thoughts by saying that the government was making things up as they went along. He has noticed at last. Good.

Chancellor Philip Hammond rocked the boat by appearing to discount a hard Brexit. He received the PM's 'full support'. Poor man. He has to go back to the Treasury which is probably explaining to him just how ghastly things look. He has already dropped the Manifesto promise of reducing the deficit within this parliamentary term.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd joined the PM in saying that the aim was to get migration down to the 'tens of thousands'. Theresa May failed to achieve this as Home Secretary. She seems determined to deliver on the targets which she failed in her previous job. Perhaps someone should remind her that the target was set her by the former PM and nobody now believes anything he says.

The government was not totally successful in not revealing its negotiating hand. The big news of the week was that Nissan had received unspecified assurances from the PM which encouraged them to continue to invest in the UK.

'Incredulous', was the general reaction to the news which led to further stonewalling when Minister Greg Clarke was asked to reveal the content of a letter to the company.

Can we assume that there is now another Brexit shopping list which includes special treatment for the City of London, car manufacturers and ... ? The list will only get longer. Fishing rights are sure to be on the agenda once someone explains the issue (slowly) to George Eustace.

The preliminary decision to permit a third runway at Heathrow also caused flurries. Several cabinet ministers were on record as opposing this. The previous PM had promised no third runway, 'no is,no buts'. Ah, but that was then and this is now. I recall being promised no fourth terminal, many years ago with much the same level of assurance.

The thought of Boris lying down in front of the bulldozers was just too joyful to contemplate. The resignation of the poisonous Zac Goldsmith and the forthcoming by-election in Richmond is going to be a wonderful side-show.

Despite the government's attempts not to allow Parliament any say in Brexit matters, the Commons was allowed one vote: a Early Day Motion asking that EU citizens should have the right to remain in the UK was voted down by 293 to 250. So they can still be used as bargaining 'cards'. No doubt Liam Fox is delighted.

He will be less delighted to be reminded by a Polish MEP that he could not start negotiating a new arrangement with the EU until we had left.

There were also several good news pieces by those who should know, pointing out just how complex it would be to set up trade agreements. Somehow, it is hard to have confidence that Liam Fox could even get to first base with them.

Of course, it would be good to know whether we are aiming to have access to the Single Market in future (as promised by some Brexiteers) or not (as suggested by others).

A witty article by Damien McGuinness explained one of the big problems faced by British negotiators: the difference between a Germany No and a British No. One means 'No', the other means 'Please try and persuade me'. No wonder our European friends do not understand us. Mind you, I am not sure I do either.

The pound is now trading at a 30 year low, 15% below its value in June.Microsoft (and others) are beginning to put up their prices, recognising that this is likely to be the new reality.

To conclude, three cheerful posts from like-minds caught the eye:

• Some one called James Christie explains why the referendum question and answer were flawed and how undemocratic they are
• John van Reenan formerly of the LSE describes himself as a derided expert takes a longer and wider look at the referendum and the drivers for the result
• And finally, Polly Toynbee points out that the public are turning against Brexit and wonders when Theresa May will listen. Optimistic, perhaps, but at least she is prepared to say the unthinkable: it is not a question of what sort of Brexit. The question should be Brexit or no Brexit? The right (compassionate, economically-informed, global, responsible, peaceful, co-operative) answer is obvious