The downwards path

Much has happened since I last posted anything here. Little of it of any encouragement at all.

Both Houses of Parliament have cravenly caved in to the bullying by the whips and given our PM the right to do just about anything she likes with Brexit. She alone can decide whether 'the deal' we manage to negotiate - if any - will be 'the best deal' and can implement it without any parliamentary scrutiny or agreement by voters.

Others have pointed out the absurdity that every other country in Europe will have the right to vote on the deal but we, the people most affected by it, will not. He ho for democracy.

We have triggered Article 50 without, apparently, there being any plan in place for right up to the wire David Davis was mumbling and prevaricating to the Parliamentary Select Committee, admitting that his Department had not done any work on a whole range of issues.

The Article 50 letter - a distinctly poor piece of drafting - contained veiled threats which went straight up the noses of the other  Members of the EU and caused our government to 'clarify' things which is usually a synonym for 'tactical retreat'.

The view from the rest of the world was a combination of shock and disappointment. A correspondent in the the Washington Post put his finger on the Britain's delusions of empire.

Then we had 'Gibraltar-gate' and Lord Howard got out his rusty sabre to threaten Spain with an invasion.

At a more detailed level, we have seen Davis et al, 'clarifying' a whole range of issues including, apparently, that migration will not be stopped. Health workers: a special case. Coffee shop baristas: a special case. Highly skilled scientists: a special case. Students: let's take them out of the reckoning.

I seem to remember David Davis saying at the despatch box that we would have 'exactly the same trade deal' as before. It now seems he did not mean 'exactly' the same deal as before. He meant that the deal would be even better.

What he did not say is what that deal would be or how one would judge whether it was 'exactly the same', 'the same' or worse. Any one of them would of course be 'much better' because DD would say that it was and the PM would then activate it with her sweeping powers. Hey ho for democracy or logic. Never let facts get in the way of a good spin.

Meanwhile, we have seen a whole string of former ministers saying that things have gone too far. Lord Heseltine, freed from his role in the party is now peeing into the tent as hard as he can. Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, John Major, Lord Patten - an alliance that on could only dream about - is united in its opposition. Sadly the numbskulls simply respond with lines like 'yesterday's men'. Playing the man and not the ball as usual.

Chris Patten's piece in The World Economic Forum was particularly good.

A bunch of Leavers tried the same when they took exception to the gloomy conclusions of the Select Committee report and simply walked out. In a response in the New Statesman, Pat MacFadden took them to task and suggested that they should face up to the arguments and not simply walk out.

All of this was well summed up in an article on the Citizen of Nowhere blog which asked Are you angry yet? This concluded that:

• We’re not going to gain sovereignty, we’re going to lose it (the government's own paper was honest to admit that we have always had sovereignty even if it has not felt like it) 
• We’re not going to reduce immigration
• We’re not going to get better trade arrangements than we already have
• We’re not going to save the money we send to the EU
• We are going to lose a lot of money and a lot of jobs
• We may break up the UK

All of which begs the age-old question: then why are we leaving the EU? Oh yes, because we voted for it.

Why?

Letter to my MP

I have been silent since before Christmas, overwhelmed by the sheer horror of a Trump presidency, and the rhetoric, attitudes and lies that supported it.

Our own government has been no better and has stumbled from pillar to post until finally, backed into a corner, our Prime Minister gave us some idea of how she - not her government note - wanted the negotiations to go. Having said she did not want to give away her negotiating position she promptly did so, showing the weakness of her hand.

Then we had the Trump/May visit when our PM walked along hand in hand with a man she had only just met: a serial philanderer and well-known sexual denigrator of women. Had a junior member of staff done the same in business they would have expected to be disciplined but no doubt there is a different rule for the rich and powerful.

A wave of protest has echoed around the world after Trump's inauguration - if that is not 'alternative facts' - and people have written in protest at the idea of welcoming him to the UK for a state visit.

Others of us felt that a line had been crossed and needed to express themselves more fully. Here is a copy of the letter I have sent to my MP who I previously regarded as something of a business friend/acquaintance.

To Sarah Newton MP for Truro and Falmouth
Dear Sarah

It is with great sadness that I have to write to you but enough is enough and I need to let you know where I stand on the key issues of the day. In what follows you will see a number of underlying themes:

• That this government is failing to lead the country effectively, is taking no practical steps to bring together a deeply divided country, and is not setting set out a vision for the future
• That this government is being dictatorial in its approach and is attempting to circumvent and ignore parliament for which it will be held accountable
• That the whole Brexit process is so flawed that it should be halted immediately and that you should vote against triggering Article 50

The vote in June split the country and a new government with a new Prime Minister emerged. Taking over at a time of crisis, the government has stumbled as it has sought to establish its policies, none of which have been tested with the public. It was inevitable that there would be a hesitant start but progress has been poor. We have had to endure a series of damp squib announcements of an increasingly objectionable nature, playing to a populist gallery, many of which have often been withdrawn shortly afterwards.

Our Prime Minister has talked about helping the ‘just about managing’ and encouraged us all to ‘come together’. Good talk and yet her government has done nothing, in all those announcements, to walk the walk. On the contrary, its announcements have seemed to bear down on precisely those about whom it professes to care.

On the major issue of Brexit, there has been no attempt to reach out to the 48% who voted to remain in Europe, let alone to those who did not vote at all and very little has been done to prevent the wave of racist and thuggish behaviour that has seemingly been sanctioned by the vote.

Nothing has been done to reassure our friends from the EU who are living here quite legally that they are not about to be deported. Instead they have been told they are ‘bargaining chips’ in a future negotiation.

And nothing has been done to reign in the quite despicable media who have stoked much of this hatred.

The biggest mistake of all has been the contempt for parliament. We have heard much about ‘democracy’ in recent months and everyone has become a barrack-room expert on the subject but history reminds us that governments that ignore parliament come to grief; usually with shattering consequences.

The referendum vote presaged the biggest shake-up of the UK for years and yet, since the vote, this government has attempted to shut down any discussion of what the future might look like. When it became clear that the leaders of the Leave Campaign had absolutely no coherent plan for our future after the vote, this government made no attempt to start a national conversation or debate in parliament as to what the vote actually meant in practice.

We were simply told that there was a deadline of the end of March: a purely arbitrary timescale. Eventually, after 5 months of silence and after much pressure, the people have been allowed to hear what the Prime Minister is thinking - in a speech lead by the word ‘I’ and not ‘we’ – a mere two months before the arrival of that deadline. There allowed no opportunity for mature reflection and discussion. Although that speech offered some involvement of parliament in the process, it was clear that the decision of the House would be forced through by three-line whip and would not be respected if it failed to support the government.  That is the way of tyranny.

It is hard to conceive of a more misguided and less open method of decision-making and this government will be judged by it.

We should be openly discussing the future of the country: whether it is really wise to prioritise control of immigration over economic stability. Whether there really is a future – beyond the wildest fantasies of some of the protagonists – as a Singapore on Speed: a description which is laughable for anyone who knows anything about the two countries. What the actual costs are going to be and how it is going to affect the man in the street. What the impact on the massive national debt might be and on the consequences for public services: yes, some of us still believe in them and do not wish to see them sold off to Jack-the-lads and foreign investors.

In short, in the absence of any plan from the Brexiters, the government had a golden opportunity to re-open the debate of options for the future of this country in a responsible, business-like and consultative way. This might have brought people together. This might have encouraged those derided experts to examine and comment on a variety of models. This could have shown just how inconsistent were the promises made by the Brexiters. It might have resulted in a compromise which could have commanded general acceptance.

But no: we were presented with silence and platitudes. People have talked about empowerment and yet the government has ignored the wishes of pockets of the country who voted to Remain and appears deaf to the views of the constituent assemblies. Take back control indeed!

Parliament is now facing a vote on triggering Article 50. I think you have four possible approaches:

The first is to recognise your responsibility as an MP to vote with your conscience. This is Walter Bagehot’s long-standing principle which has not yet been formally overturned even in an age of mass communications and opinion polls.

You were an avowed Remainer during the campaign and I therefore give you the benefit of the doubt that that is where your heart lies. I shall not insult you by digging out your own statements on why it is the right thing to do.

If your conscience still supports remaining then I would ask you to consider whether you believe that what is proposed is actually in the country’s best interest. Is it economically sound? Is it thought through? Has it been properly costed? Have the consequences been clearly explained to the public: and not just on the side of a bus, through Twitter, on the Andrew Marr show or in a speech at Lancaster House? Is it for the best for the maximum number of people without being the tyranny of a vocal minority?

Or you could consider what the voters in your own constituency voted for. They voted to Remain. I do not need to rehearse the arguments as to why Cornwall should have favoured remaining: Cornwall Council’s letter the week after the vote asking for confirmation that it would receive as much money after Brexit as it had received from the EU said it all. You have every right to vote as your constituents did and to argue against triggering Article 50.

Or you could join the legion of barrack-room democrats and say that ‘the country voted to leave so we should leave’. To do so would be to spit in the face of the 48% and the many who did not vote whose views you cannot know. As is now pretty universally acknowledged, the previous government completely messed up the nature of the referendum. It did not require a super-majority and disenfranchised groups in a quite arbitrary manner, over-confident at the likely outcome.

What seems so incredible is that no one has had the honesty or guts to stand up and say this publicly. Two wrongs do not make a right as we were all taught in the nursery.

Another, and fundamental reason for treating the result with great caution is the appalling nature of the pre-vote conversation. There was no meaningful manifesto by Brexiters who made a series of conflicting and contradictory promises. It is no good saying ‘people are grown up enough to know that politicians don’t mean what they say when they are after your vote’. That is simply immoral. The rowing back on the promise of £350m per week on the NHS and inclusion in the Single Market are cases in point.

We know the vote was emotional. We also know it was built on lies. That is why it is the responsibility of government to regard it as advisory, as originally intended, and re-start the conversation with a fuller picture. The way to do this is to vote to delay the triggering of Article 50.

We considered impeaching Tony Blair for taking us to war in Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies. Are you satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that we are not about to leave the EU based on a similar pack of lies?

Your last option would be simply to follow the instructions of the party whips. This will make you complicit in the tyranny and is precisely the behaviour that brings Westminster into contempt.

So, where does this take us?

I, like others, have been appalled to see our Prime Minister cosying up to repressive regimes in an attempt to build bridges with potential trading partners. To think that we are in danger of rejecting the neighbours who are a mere 20 miles away from us in favour of regimes like Turkey which appears to be becoming more authoritarian and whose candidature to the EU was major issue for Brexiters during the campaign; or Australia, a country we love but which is rather more carbon miles away than could possibly be sensible; or Saudi Arabia who barely seem to believe that women exist as equal citizens. And as for holding hands with the most divisive president of the USA ever, who is intent on prioritising ‘America First’, actively pursuing discriminatory policies, preventing the entry of people from countries he does not like on distinctly dubious grounds, and advocating the break up the EU: the mind boggles. And inviting President Trump for a state visit puts HM the Queen in an impossible position. Is she supposed to hold hands too?
It is hard not to be stunned by the naivety and delusional nature of the thinking.

Has parliament had a say in any of this? No. Despite the promises that ‘Parliament will have an important role in making sure we find the best way forward’ (David Jones MP).

And that brings me full circle to the purpose of this letter.

Enough is enough. I can no longer countenance support for this government in any form. It has already made us a laughing stock around the world. It is betraying the core British values of mature reason, debate and fair dealing. It is riding roughshod over the fragile flower of democracy. In collusion with the media, it is attempting to browbeat the judiciary. It is enabling a repressive narrative of discrimination on the basis of religion, race and nationality. It is openly seeking to circumvent proper debate in both houses of parliament; and it is gulling the people by not allowing an open, reasoned and informed debate or telling them the likely economic and social impact of the decision to leave the EU.

A criminal found guilty in a trial is given leave to appeal so that there can be a second check on the evidence. Some of the people may have spoken in June last year but it seems that there is to be no chance for appeal or rational informed debate on what is surely going to be the most important decision this country will take this century.  The current Brexit proposals are tantamount to summary execution without appeal: by being thrown off a cliff.

What this government, and that of the USA do not understand is that making Britain or America ‘great’ again does not mean making them the most physically or economically strong: neither of which is actually possible. Nor does it mean a return to some imagined glory days of the past: which is not possible given globalisation and the nature of our changed economies. Being ‘great’ again means being respected for our calm, mature, rational, human, open-mindedness and willingness to engage; for our respect for parliamentary democracy and not the voice of the rabble: for our soft power not our hard. The governments of both countries are hell bent on what they see as ‘greatness’ and I see as narrow, selfish, nationalism in precisely the opposite direction: a route to ‘littleness’.

I hope when you and I meet again we will be able to discuss some of these issues rationally but please be aware that if you vote for triggering Article 50 in March, I shall be working as hard as I can both to bring down the current administration and to unseat you as our MP at the next election.

I hope you vote with your conscience against triggering Article 50 at the end of March so that you and I can at least claim to be on the side of reason, not of the mob and not of dictatorship.

Best wishes

It wasn't a vote about the EU ...

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.

Bringing people together

Sarah Olney, the newly-elected MP for Richmond Park put it well in her maiden speech:

'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.

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:

• 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

and

• 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 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?

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 ...

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.