The Prime Minister appeared before the parliamentary Liaison Committee today and said:
It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote to leave the EU, but to change the way the country works and the people for whom it works forever.
Well that was a discovery. I seem to remember the question being about whether we wanted to stay in the EU or not, not about whether we wanted to change the whole country.
But, if the vote was about changing the way the country works, then are we going to be allowed to hear what is planned? How might the country change? Who are these people for whom it will work in future? How will this be achieved?
Oh no, of course. This is not open government. It is Tudor-style autocracy. Sajid Javid is already proposing the equivalent of the Oath of Supremacy (that which brought down Thomas More).
She dodged the question as to whether Parliament would have a vote on the final deal, refusing to give a yes/no answer but waffling about the 'need to deliver the will of the British people to leave the EU'. Her one line job description which she is determined to deliver whatever it costs. Not to do so would be 'failure'.
She is sounding just like a Spitting Image Thatcher already, railing at all around her for not delivering her wishes.
Tuesday 20 December 2016
Bringing people together
'It is my belief that Parliament can be a positive force in bringing together the two sides of the Brexit debate.
'If the arguments can be aired openly, questions answered thoughtfully and votes taken on all the significant points of difference, then each British citizen will see that their point of view is being represented, whichever way they voted in June.'
Now that would be a radical move for this government which refuses to engage in any detail, which 'does not recognise' inconvenient truths and which has done nothing to heal the divisions between those who voted to Leave and those who voted to Remain. We are simply told to 'listen to the voice of the British people' and 'get over it, you lost!'
Sarah ended her speech:
'Such benefits [of collaboration with our nearest neighbours in trade, education, environment, security and well-being] should not be carelessly thrown aside without a careful, sober and detailed examination of what the consequences will be.'
Hear, hear.
Saturday 17 December 2016
The UK's Christmas letter
Well, it is that time of year again when we look back at the last twelve months. And what a year it has been for the family.
This time last year we were celebrating (?) the election of the first majority Tory government for eighteen years (unlike the sham version we had been living with for five years). Then it all went wrong. 'Dave' our Prime Minister announced that we could vote on whether we stayed in the EU.
After a campaign of half truths, what ifs, downright lies and dog-whistle politics which offered an a la carte menu of things like:
The forces of selfishness, racism, nostalgia and dislike of 'them' (whoever 'they' actually were) rallied to the call and, completely missing the point about who had caused the misery that had followed the recession, the people surprised themselves by voting by a narrow margin to leave the EU.
The main Brexiteers were surprised too, but not as surprised as the general public when they discovered that there was not even a dodgy dossier. There was no plan at all. None.
The Great British public had voted for a principle: to leave the club. They had shown what they did not like - the EU, metropolitan elites and Westminster - but had not the faintest idea what they did like, nor how their decision was going to be made to work.
The country was irrevocably divided: triumphant Brexiteers 'You lost, get over it' and depressed and moaning Remainers. Families were divided in the same way as they had been during the C17 Civil War. No, we did not want to get over it.
'Dave' resigned and, after an unseemly week of back-stabbing, control freak Theresa May emerged as our leader. 'Brexit means Brexit', she said: the nearest we had come to a definition of what we had been voting about. With an excellent opening speech, on a par with that of Maggie Thatcher who went on to do precisely the opposite of what she had promised.
Theresa swept into No 10. Here, she appointed the only three Brexiteers with a modicum of credibility left (well, two of them to be truthful, plus the court jester) as Ministers and told them to deliver.
We replaced the hated metropolitan elites and Westminster with ... metropolitan elites (although fewer Etonians) and Westminster. Was it worth the effort? Were the lunatics now in charge of the asylum? Would it appease the masses?
It was now up to the government to tell us what it was we had voted for. Where were to be the priorities: economic survival or simply stopping migration?
The three blind mice argued among themselves and, as we reach the closing of the year, six months after the vote we are still no clearer.
One day we needed to be in the Single Market; then we were told that we didn't. Then we were told that we might pay to access the Single Market, then we were told that we won't. Arrogant posturing - 'They need us more than we need them' - was followed by jousting about importing prosecco.
Messages coming out of the EU showed that they were spelling things out v e r y s l o w l y but we seemed incapable of hearing them.
Hard and Soft Brexits gave way to a red, white and blue one (yet another of TM's wonderful meaningless and gnomic platitudes) and even a transitional one
EU citizens living in the UK have no idea of their likely future. Nissan has received special treatment (too secret for those of us who will pay for it to know about). The financial services, fisheries and other industries are queuing up to receive similar 'consideration'.
Cliff edges were mentioned. The Chancellor ditched many of the targets on which the Tories were elected 'in the light of Brexit' while admitting that the transition out of the EU could cost the UK economy many billions of pounds. Perhaps even £350m a week. Surveys showed that people 'would not be prepared to be worse off when we leave the EU'. Well I have news for them.
On a positive note, Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested that the UK could go 'a very long way' to rolling back high EU standards. (Yes, and we could scrap the minimum wage and reintroduce workhouses).
The PM has been on trade missions - which were reported by No 10 to have been 'great successes' of course - to China, India and Saudi Arabia. Presumably these are to become some of our main trading partners (never mind the appalling human rights records of two of those countries. Dictators like to stick together).
Cards have been kept close to chests. We are three months from triggering Article 50 (if it has not effectively been triggered already) and the general public has still not been told anything about what is planned. It has not even been told what it really voted for.
We have had to survive on leaks to know what is going on. 'They have no plan' said one. 'Have cake and eat it?' said another. The need for 30,000 more civil servants was mentioned.
Knuckles have been rapped (publicly) whenever Ministers have gone off script ('All Hail Great Leader who shall hold all decisions unto Herself').
At the last minute, the government caved in and promised to publish a summary of its plans to parliament before triggering Article 50. Our craven MPs, no doubt stamped on by the whips, swapped this for an agreement in principle to the timetable of the end of March.
Where were their convictions? Have they not read A Man for All Seasons? 'I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties ... they lead their country by a short route to chaos.'
So, after more than seven months of their work, we will have less than seven weeks to think about their plan. Will it be more than a fag packet? Will MPs actually get to debate and vote on it? Will they then have the courage of their convictions? Will 'no' be a possible answer? Will pigs fly?
We have all became experts on democracy. Why had we not voted for our Prime Minister? Was a 52% vote on a constitutional matter acceptable? What was the role of parliament in a so-called representative democracy? What would the role of the Lords be? Will Scotland break away? Will Northern Ireland?
As if this was not enough, there has been a large elephant in the room of public discourse: the complete lack of action by the government to unite the very divided country. Apart from platitudes from the rostrum and meaningless repetition of phrases like 'just about managing' (a policy that was simply not carried through into the Autumn financial statement), the government has done nothing - not a thing - to bring the Remainers into the camp.
'Say nothing or they may discover the truth' has been the watchword of the day. 'Don't tell him your name, Pike.'
Everything has been negative. Any attempt to ask questions has been slapped down. Any attempt to express an alternative view has been rubbished. Brexiteer MPs have talked of charges of treason for daring to express a view contrary to theirs.
Where are the campaigns trying to woo us to their view of the future? What is that future going to look like? If we are grown up enough to vote in a referendum then are we not grown up enough to know how you translate the meaning of that result, what that future might actually look like? Remember, there was not even a dodgy dossier, no plan. Are we heading for the Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Ukraine, Turkish ... model (or none of the above)? Why?
Sadly, unlike one Christmas, there has been no new messenger: no statesman (or woman) willing and able to stand up and say:
'This is all nonsense. The referendum was built on lies and deceptions. You cannot take a serious and long-lasting decision in that way. It would be immoral and stupid. Look what happened when we did that with Iraq. We have to have a plan for 'victory'.
'It is clear that there is dissatisfaction and inequalities in the country. Let's start by defining what those are. Only when we have worked out what is wrong and what our options might be should we start looking for solutions. Those solutions may involve leaving a trading block. They may not. Let's work out the costs and benefits in a sober and rational way before we do anything we might later regret.'
No, that sounds far too sensible.
Should we just get over it? No, for I cannot keep silent. A Man for All Seasons again: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing according to your conscience... and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
Or Kipling's Statesman:
I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
It has been a fun year, don't you think. Next year looks as if it is going to be even better.
Happy Christmas and a Prosperous (?) New Year.
Here is your Christmas card, with no Jews, Arabs or migrants. It is better than a robin in the snow, don't you think?
This time last year we were celebrating (?) the election of the first majority Tory government for eighteen years (unlike the sham version we had been living with for five years). Then it all went wrong. 'Dave' our Prime Minister announced that we could vote on whether we stayed in the EU.
- Making Britain 'Great' again
- 'Taking back control' - whatever that meant
- A halt to migration - which the Tories had promised and yet had failed to deliver
- An end to EU regulations - which had so improved our environment, product standards, workers' rights ...
- Economic nirvana
- Against the advice of every respected organisation, think tank or economic adviser in the country
- But not against the advice of some scurrilous, ill-informed, outwardly racist 'reporting' in the chip-wrapper media
- Supported by social media which reduced everything to the shortest of short sound bites
The main Brexiteers were surprised too, but not as surprised as the general public when they discovered that there was not even a dodgy dossier. There was no plan at all. None.
The Great British public had voted for a principle: to leave the club. They had shown what they did not like - the EU, metropolitan elites and Westminster - but had not the faintest idea what they did like, nor how their decision was going to be made to work.
The country was irrevocably divided: triumphant Brexiteers 'You lost, get over it' and depressed and moaning Remainers. Families were divided in the same way as they had been during the C17 Civil War. No, we did not want to get over it.
'Dave' resigned and, after an unseemly week of back-stabbing, control freak Theresa May emerged as our leader. 'Brexit means Brexit', she said: the nearest we had come to a definition of what we had been voting about. With an excellent opening speech, on a par with that of Maggie Thatcher who went on to do precisely the opposite of what she had promised.
Theresa swept into No 10. Here, she appointed the only three Brexiteers with a modicum of credibility left (well, two of them to be truthful, plus the court jester) as Ministers and told them to deliver.
We replaced the hated metropolitan elites and Westminster with ... metropolitan elites (although fewer Etonians) and Westminster. Was it worth the effort? Were the lunatics now in charge of the asylum? Would it appease the masses?
It was now up to the government to tell us what it was we had voted for. Where were to be the priorities: economic survival or simply stopping migration?
The three blind mice argued among themselves and, as we reach the closing of the year, six months after the vote we are still no clearer.
One day we needed to be in the Single Market; then we were told that we didn't. Then we were told that we might pay to access the Single Market, then we were told that we won't. Arrogant posturing - 'They need us more than we need them' - was followed by jousting about importing prosecco.
Messages coming out of the EU showed that they were spelling things out v e r y s l o w l y but we seemed incapable of hearing them.
Hard and Soft Brexits gave way to a red, white and blue one (yet another of TM's wonderful meaningless and gnomic platitudes) and even a transitional oneEU citizens living in the UK have no idea of their likely future. Nissan has received special treatment (too secret for those of us who will pay for it to know about). The financial services, fisheries and other industries are queuing up to receive similar 'consideration'.
Cliff edges were mentioned. The Chancellor ditched many of the targets on which the Tories were elected 'in the light of Brexit' while admitting that the transition out of the EU could cost the UK economy many billions of pounds. Perhaps even £350m a week. Surveys showed that people 'would not be prepared to be worse off when we leave the EU'. Well I have news for them.
On a positive note, Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested that the UK could go 'a very long way' to rolling back high EU standards. (Yes, and we could scrap the minimum wage and reintroduce workhouses).
The PM has been on trade missions - which were reported by No 10 to have been 'great successes' of course - to China, India and Saudi Arabia. Presumably these are to become some of our main trading partners (never mind the appalling human rights records of two of those countries. Dictators like to stick together).
Cards have been kept close to chests. We are three months from triggering Article 50 (if it has not effectively been triggered already) and the general public has still not been told anything about what is planned. It has not even been told what it really voted for.
We have had to survive on leaks to know what is going on. 'They have no plan' said one. 'Have cake and eat it?' said another. The need for 30,000 more civil servants was mentioned.
Knuckles have been rapped (publicly) whenever Ministers have gone off script ('All Hail Great Leader who shall hold all decisions unto Herself').
At the last minute, the government caved in and promised to publish a summary of its plans to parliament before triggering Article 50. Our craven MPs, no doubt stamped on by the whips, swapped this for an agreement in principle to the timetable of the end of March.
Where were their convictions? Have they not read A Man for All Seasons? 'I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties ... they lead their country by a short route to chaos.'
So, after more than seven months of their work, we will have less than seven weeks to think about their plan. Will it be more than a fag packet? Will MPs actually get to debate and vote on it? Will they then have the courage of their convictions? Will 'no' be a possible answer? Will pigs fly?
We have all became experts on democracy. Why had we not voted for our Prime Minister? Was a 52% vote on a constitutional matter acceptable? What was the role of parliament in a so-called representative democracy? What would the role of the Lords be? Will Scotland break away? Will Northern Ireland?
As if this was not enough, there has been a large elephant in the room of public discourse: the complete lack of action by the government to unite the very divided country. Apart from platitudes from the rostrum and meaningless repetition of phrases like 'just about managing' (a policy that was simply not carried through into the Autumn financial statement), the government has done nothing - not a thing - to bring the Remainers into the camp.
'Say nothing or they may discover the truth' has been the watchword of the day. 'Don't tell him your name, Pike.'
Everything has been negative. Any attempt to ask questions has been slapped down. Any attempt to express an alternative view has been rubbished. Brexiteer MPs have talked of charges of treason for daring to express a view contrary to theirs.
Where are the campaigns trying to woo us to their view of the future? What is that future going to look like? If we are grown up enough to vote in a referendum then are we not grown up enough to know how you translate the meaning of that result, what that future might actually look like? Remember, there was not even a dodgy dossier, no plan. Are we heading for the Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Ukraine, Turkish ... model (or none of the above)? Why?
Sadly, unlike one Christmas, there has been no new messenger: no statesman (or woman) willing and able to stand up and say:
'This is all nonsense. The referendum was built on lies and deceptions. You cannot take a serious and long-lasting decision in that way. It would be immoral and stupid. Look what happened when we did that with Iraq. We have to have a plan for 'victory'.
'It is clear that there is dissatisfaction and inequalities in the country. Let's start by defining what those are. Only when we have worked out what is wrong and what our options might be should we start looking for solutions. Those solutions may involve leaving a trading block. They may not. Let's work out the costs and benefits in a sober and rational way before we do anything we might later regret.'
No, that sounds far too sensible.
Should we just get over it? No, for I cannot keep silent. A Man for All Seasons again: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing according to your conscience... and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
Or Kipling's Statesman:I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
It has been a fun year, don't you think. Next year looks as if it is going to be even better.
Happy Christmas and a Prosperous (?) New Year.
Here is your Christmas card, with no Jews, Arabs or migrants. It is better than a robin in the snow, don't you think?
Ostrich anyone?
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's top diplomat in Brussels has privately told the government that a Brexit deal could take ten years.
The initial response of No 10 was We do not recognise this advice. This was later amended to We do not recognise this timetable.
What a stupid and arrogant response but it was everything one has come to expect from the ostrich-like No 10 press machine.
I suppose that we should be grateful that they said anything. They could have had him arraigned for treason carted off the Tower and delivered to the axeman. Or he could have simply been sacked. No, that would be far too kind.
In another part of the jungle, the non-appearance of Nicky Morgan on Have I Got News For You following her perfectly justified (if rather unwise) remarks about the PM's leather trousers shows that the No 10 terror machine has nothing to learn from Putin's Russia.
As usual, her absence from the programme gave much more oxygen to the issue than it would ever have had if she had been there.
Let's put our hands over our ears and pretend that anything which does not accord with our view of the world does not need 'to be recognised'.
Come to think of it, we could do the same about the £350m a week that we are meant to be saving when we leave the EU, and the problems of the negotiations, and ...
The initial response of No 10 was We do not recognise this advice. This was later amended to We do not recognise this timetable.
What a stupid and arrogant response but it was everything one has come to expect from the ostrich-like No 10 press machine.
I suppose that we should be grateful that they said anything. They could have had him arraigned for treason carted off the Tower and delivered to the axeman. Or he could have simply been sacked. No, that would be far too kind.
As usual, her absence from the programme gave much more oxygen to the issue than it would ever have had if she had been there.
Let's put our hands over our ears and pretend that anything which does not accord with our view of the world does not need 'to be recognised'.
Come to think of it, we could do the same about the £350m a week that we are meant to be saving when we leave the EU, and the problems of the negotiations, and ...
Making Britain 'Great' again?
Someone called Frank Nijhoff (*) put, in prose, what Gray put in verse: an elegy for a once great nation:
The sad thing is that if you are really convinced that you are such a great country, you wouldn't close yourself; you wouldn't shut yourselves in and others out.
It demonstrates a nation in deep internal conflict with itself, uncertain about its own identity, about its future and its place in the world, and trying to convince itself, somewhat pathetically, that it is greater than it really is (no matter what past achievements it holds).
And it shows a disrespect for your fellow Europeans: implicit is the idea that all the other nations, all the other 450,000,000 people in the EU, in some sense are less special, are less clever, are less queued up, are less proud of their own heritage and culture.
Just sad.
* I have no evidence that this is the Professor of Mathematics at Leeds but I hope it is: a man of science and rational thought.
The sad thing is that if you are really convinced that you are such a great country, you wouldn't close yourself; you wouldn't shut yourselves in and others out.
It demonstrates a nation in deep internal conflict with itself, uncertain about its own identity, about its future and its place in the world, and trying to convince itself, somewhat pathetically, that it is greater than it really is (no matter what past achievements it holds).
And it shows a disrespect for your fellow Europeans: implicit is the idea that all the other nations, all the other 450,000,000 people in the EU, in some sense are less special, are less clever, are less queued up, are less proud of their own heritage and culture.
Just sad.
* I have no evidence that this is the Professor of Mathematics at Leeds but I hope it is: a man of science and rational thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)