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  

Children or adults?

So, at long last, the government has arranged for some of the children from 'The Jungle' in Calais to be brought across to the UK to be re-united with their families. (Someone must have needed press coverage to show how 'caring and compassionate' she is).

The tabloids went mental at the suggestion that some of them might not be quite as young as they say.

• An MP suggests dental checks: dentists refuse ... 
• Gary Lineker (amongst others) shows sympathy with the refugees; The Sun calls for him to be sacked ...

... and so the story developed.

Our super-competent government is planning to introduce a visa system to decide who will, and who will not, be allowed to enter this country.

If it cannot screen 14 children, in slow time from as close as Calais, how are they successfully going to screen the other 320,000 [... and falling*] that want to come to the UK each year?

We are surely not going to use any of the £350m a week (Brexiteers' estimate) saving from being in the EU to hire more border staff. That is already committed to the NHS (Brexiteers' promise)?

* An after-thought: with the racist atmosphere being promulgated by our media, egged on by those who should know better, it is unlikely that the demand will be as high as this in future. Well, I suppose it is one way to bring down immigration.

Still 'moaning' ...

What an amazing mess this government is continuing to make of Brexit. As the clock winds down, nothing is becoming clearer and it is being dragged kicking and screaming to the realisation that some sort of parliamentary scrutiny is going to be inevitable. Its objective, it seems, is to prevent anyone derailing its view of what should happen.

Fine in principle, it is just that it has not explained what that is.

As David Davis told Parliament recently there was a clear, overwhelming and unarguable mandate for Brexit in the referendum. As one commentator pointed out, this sentence contains three lies in six words. For 'clear' let us use 'wafer thin'. For overwhelming, let us remind ourselves that about a third of the country voted to leave the EU and for 'unarguable' let us remind ourselves that the vote was 'advisory'.

There are three possible positions for Remainers to take: to accept, to squirm or to refuse to accept. The bullying cosh of 'democracy' has forced most Remainers into one of the first two groups. I am firmly in the third which people enjoy referring to as being 'in denial'.

For a Remainer to Accept the Result seems a complete cop-out. Democracy is not some magic fairy dust which has clear and unambiguous rules. It is the will of the people. Our chosen method is representative democracy. To judge each issue in isolation is naive and simplistic. Every decision has knock-on consequences which need to be balanced and we delegate this to people called MPs.

No one has written the rules down of our system of democracy. We have written constitution and so our system of governance has to be based on precedent and goodwill. (I note, in passing that the British Constitution A level has recently been deleted from the curriculum).

No one could objectively call our country a model of democracy, despite our belief that we created the system and have the mother of parliaments. A simple mention of the words 'House of Lords' and 'Proportional Representation' should suffice to show how far we are from a true 'democracy', if such a thing is actually achievable. We are hardly progressive. A natural British conservativism has prevented any meaningful change since women's suffrage.

The second option is To Squirm. It is encouraging that, at last, Parliament is beginning to demand to be involved. It will have to contend with the whips of course, and the machinations of a government which seems to think that a parliamentary rubber stamp will suffice. WS Gilbert would love the idea.

Even the Telegraph's sketch writer, Michael Deacon, seems to be questioning the government's approach, however, rightly suggesting that the government seems to think that they have a free hand to do whatever they want. An earlier piece, again very surprisingly from the Telegraph, showed that migration was an economic benefit to the country and that migrants were not actually taking jobs away from 'British people'.

For The Times, the incomparable Matthew Parris has had his Damascus moment, opining that we are facing the biggest crisis since Suez. For those who do not remember this (and Matthew was close to this as a boy), this was the moment when the UK finally showed that it was no longer capable of 'gunboat diplomacy'. The end of empire followed. Now we are about to show that we no longer understand international trade. Truly the end of any chance of 'Greatness': a horrid concept, much loved by Brexiteers.

People like Keir Starmer and Nick Clegg seem to understand the parliamentary game and are leading the charge. It is a far more astute political - note the lower case 'p' - game than some. 'OK, so you have a plan. Tell us what it is before you do anything irrevocable. Just explain to us how it is going to work and we will judge it on its merits. If Parliament approves it then think how much stronger your position will be in any negotiations.'

I like their style. It is not surprising that this sends the government into a tailspin. 'Oh dear me no. That would be to betray our negotiating position.' This response conveniently hides the fact that the three blind mice cannot agree amongst themselves, let alone other members of the cabinet. Allow the public and media to judge us on what we are seeking to achieve. Oh dear me no. There will be no running commentary.

My response is one word much-favoured by Brexiteers: 'Democracy'.

Finally, there is the Refuse to Accept or denial group. This is the purists option.This is the silent group that needs to be placated in any compromise deal. I suspect that long-time Europhile Ken Clarke is in this group.

The arguments here are that the referendum did not produce David Davis' clear, overwhelming and unarguable mandate. It was a single, advisory vote which told us almost nothing about the mix of reasons why people voted as they did. It told us what people wanted to do - leave the EU - but gave no information about why. In many ways it was a selfish, single issue vote without context.

It was a vote in the same category as 'Do we all want a free pot of Marmite every day'. There would be those who loved it and those who hated it but it would make no economic sense.

It was a question on a single issue with neither side setting out no a clear economic and social manifesto in advance It told us what we did not like but not why, nor what alternative we preferred.

Before we went to war with Iraq, we were given many 'facts' and invited to make up our minds. Many of us said 'Not in my Name' but the government of the day went ahead anyway.

The debacle was followed by the hugely expensive Chilcott review. This concluded that the decision had been based on lies and there have even been calls for Tony Blair to be prosecuted.

Let's wind the clock forward. If Brexit produces the economic effects predicted by the 'experts' then will we be looking back with another Chilcott review and wondering how we ever took the decision to leave the EU after a campaign of lies? Nick Clegg refers to the comments by the main culprits as 'mendacious'.

With each day that goes past, another lie is exposed, another 'commitment' withdrawn or 'clarified'. All we are left with is the conclusion that we should leave the EU: a conclusion whose foundations have faded away.

This week, a Tory councillor suggested that anyone in the last two groups - the Squirmers and Deniers - should be charged with treason. If that does not give you some flavour of the Tory mindset and love of freedom of speech, I don't know what does.

In the absence of any sort of plan, the government seem to be doing nothing but sit with their hands over their ears to avoid hearing the messages coming out of the EU and the leaders of the other 27 countries. It is saying that 'metropolitan elites' with their 'sneering' and 'logical arguments' should be told to shut up. And it is doing nothing to persuade people like me to join the first group.

Truly a new take on the fable of the three wise monkeys.

Enough is enough

The recent Tory Party Conference was genuinely a watershed. As Ian Hislop has said, the first few days sounded like the UKIP Conference and then we had one day of the Labour Conference in which the PM made lots of smooth-sounding platitudes about bringing people together, governing for all and making a success of Brexit.

She has become rather good at such noises ... but ruined the effect the following day by allowing Sajid Javid to announce that fracking is to go ahead in Lancashire in defiance of the wishes of the local community and in favour of big business (sorry, 'our national energy policy'). I am sure that the people of Lancashire will have enjoyed the exercise of 'democracy'.

It was possible to feel deeply insulted by the response that it was not for Parliament to double-think the will of the British people, presumably because that was reserved for the ruling clique who have interpreted the June vote to suit their own purposes. One commentator even tried to justify the government's strategy on the basis of 'polling' which makes one wonder why we bother to have elections at all.

Just as we were reeling from Liam Fox' suggestion that existing EU nationals were mere cards to be played in our negotiation with the EU we heard from our Home Secretary which was surely the nadir of the Conference. (Not forgetting that our control-freak PM's former job - record definitely doubtful - was Home Secretary and this is a policy area in which she would have a special  interest)

Amber Rudd's speech said that companies would need to record the nationality of all staff and name and shame those that were employing foreigners. This was particularly appalling as it came from a minister in a cabinet that prides itself on its micro-management of news (with the exception of statements by the three blind mice/wise monkeys who seem to be a law unto themselves and frequently contradict each other).

Her speech was the moment that I said 'I can no longer stand by. I must act.'

A clarification assured us that Rudd had not meant what she had said at all and that there was no question of naming and shaming it was just that government was going to collect the statistics so that it could work out where there were 'skill shortages'. Back-tracking under pressure, and so quickly.

As an aside, can someone explain to me how the system is going to work? Data would be submitted by firms. This will no doubt say 'this database manager job is occupied by a person born in Czechia' ...which will feed through to the Education Department who will train up a new database manager so that, in 20 years, we will have a person available who can fill that job. This is the apparent thinking behind Jeremy Hunt's delight in announcing that 1500 extra doctors are to be trained each year (and about time too).

Or will it feed through to Employment Offices who will be required to trawl through their records to find someone who claims to be a database manager so that they can be posted to the firm concerned who can then 'let go' of the Czech national?

And, if so, then how many civil servants will it take to administer such a scheme? And at what cost?

And will the number of vacancies - less the number of existing Brits who claim to be able to do the job - be passed to our Consulates so that they can 'let in' suitable people who can then apply for the jobs?

And what happens if the Brits concerned turn out to be wholly unsuitable for the jobs concerned? What of the government's productivity drive then?

Then there was the message to the LSE that the government would not permit anyone with a foreign passport to provide advice to government on matters to do with Brexit, ostensibly for fear that 'our negotiating position - (do we read 'lack of any coherent plan'?) should leak. This was so swiftly and strenuously denied as to be deeply suspicious.

I can no longer stand by at such centralist fascist bullying, such xeno-racist talk. All it requires for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. Just as Donald Trump's vile remarks show the true character of the man - not something that can be dismissed as locker-room chat - so last week's announcements show the true character of this government.

Let me state my position clearly: this government must go, starting at the top.

In 1997 we were a nation that was at ease with itself. Not now. Not when half the country is regarded as deluded for their views. Not when the government of the day behaves like the worst sort of bully - 'you lost get over it' - aided and abetted by most of the mainstream media (owned by rich tycoons who stand to benefit most from Brexit). Not when the government of the day does nothing - not a single thing - to win us over to their vision of the future: not an explanation, not a reasoned argument, not an invitation to engage: just platitudes and 'it will be alright on the night'.

Some of us wish the UK to continue as an Open, tolerant and united country and yes, those words may be familiar but they should apply to all political parties in the great tradition of UK.Why, they are probably enshrined in the 'British Values' which the government is so keen that all schoolchildren should learn about.

Parliament managed to find time to discuss - but not vote on - the plan for Brexit this week. Of course a vote could not happen: the government might have lost it. Was this the re-capturing sovereignty for our own parliament that was promised?

I do not normally post things verbatim on this site but every now and again something appears which hits the nail on the head. What follows is a letter from someone about whom I know nothing but who clearly feels the same as many of us:

Dear Prime Minister

I was a Remain voter.

When you became Prime Minister I was cautiously hopeful because I felt you would be a voice of reason and moderation in a country where these qualities seemed to be being cast aside. Even when you appointed Messrs Fox, Davis, and Johnson to government, I felt perhaps that this was an intelligent move to give the responsibility for execution to those who had so carelessly made lavish and unfulfillable promises.

However, the Conservative Party Conference has disabused me of this hope.

Although I am now in my sixties, I have never known the country so divided as it has been since 23rd June. 

The Conference would have been an opportunity for a real leader to reach out to try to start to heal some of the wounds. Instead, you decided to use your speech to disparage the 16 million voters who felt it would be a huge mistake for this country to leave the EU.

Thanks to your speech I learn that I am, in your eyes, part of a “sneering, metropolitan elite” because I struggle to understand why a slim majority of my fellow citizens voted to go down the disastrous route of leaving the EU.

It is certainly true that I have sneered at the manifest dishonesty of senior politicians (some now in your cabinet) who misled the electorate by telling lies so crass, so grotesque, that they had to be withdrawn a day or two after the referendum.

However, I do not sneer and never have sneered at the concerns of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society – I myself grew up in that sort of background. I believe they have very real causes for concern which have been ignored for far too long. The irony of this is that you have been a senior member of governments which, for the last six years, have been doing the ignoring, so trying to place the blame on those who voted Remain is a cynical misdirection of responsibility.

Truly, if you want to see real sneering, you have only to glance at the Daily Express or visit a Brexit website.

That apart, I am angry.

I am angry at MPs who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to make the most significant decision of a generation on the basis of these lies, and who lack the moral courage of their own convictions.

I am angry at a government which, after a narrow margin in favour of detaching from the EU (with a significantly disenfranchised electorate and where “Leave” voters were motivated by a wide range of considerations) now seeks to convert this advisory vote (for thus it was) into a mandate to lurch to the extreme right and to turn on those of foreign birth who have made their lives in this country.

I am angry at a government which, pursing a policy supposedly in the name of “taking back sovereignty”, now believes that it alone has the right to decide on the future of the country without reference to our elected parliament.

I am angry at a government which appears intent on a “hard Brexit” which will condemn us to a further decade or more of recession which will hit hardest the poorest and most needy in our society, will severely diminish our place in the world, and which may well fragment the United Kingdom itself.

I am angry at a government which fails to invest in housing, education, health, and other infrastructure and then cynically encourages the blame to be passed on to immigrants when services cannot cope.

I bow to no-one in my pride at being British, but patriotism is not the same as a narrow, xenophobic nationalism. I believe that our future lies in close co-operation with other European Democracies, rather than with regimes like China, or in gloriously futile isolationism. In truth, right now I am feeling ashamed of my country.

I do not normally spend a huge amount of time engaged with politics. I have only once written to a Prime Minister before: to Tony Blair on the eve of the Iraq War. However, it appears that you now think of me as your enemy, along with the sixteen million others who voted Remain and who are, for the most part, still deeply concerned about the direction in which our country is heading. So be it.

A few years ago, you yourself said of the Conservatives: “They call us the Nasty Party”. Well, after your party’s Conference, people are now calling you the Nazi Party. There’s a legacy to be proud of, Prime Minister! 

Yours sincerely 

Martyn Calder

The job I am used to

Have you noticed how someone who is promoted internally seems to enjoy doing the same job they had before? There is a natural comfort in knowing the topic.

It is akin to what follows the familiar line If I were in charge we would ... which usually results in a rather narrowly-focused solution largely based on the person's current job rather than one which takes other factors into account.

Our new PM is certainly following this trend with her interpretation of the referendum result as being all about migration (which she failed to control in her previous job) and squeezing the European Court of Justice (with whom she crossed swords in her last job) out of our affairs.

It is sad that the economy will need to be sent down the pan to overcome her previous failings.