Sunday 24 February 2019

Brexit Mutiny


Paul Collier wrote a very interesting piece in the Spectator this week in which he said that we must regain our bargaining power in the Brexit by, counterintuitively, withdrawing the Article 50 declaration.

The analysis of the problem was cogent as he likened the referendum result to a mutiny fomented by a breakdown of trust between the less successful citizens and their highly-skilled and flexible counterparts, mainly from the South East.  Collier argues that a healthy society rests on the mutual acceptance of a web of obligations amongst its citizens.  No longer feeling reassured, the less fortunate mutinied.  Of course, there were other reasons for voting leave but the mutiny having succeeded there was, as is typical of mutinies, no coherent plan on what to do next.
Here I will depart from Collier’s analysis to point out that a large number of influential opponents of leaving kept themselves well below decks during the mutiny.  Perhaps they felt that their intellect was not needed in such an open and shut argument?  The remain foot soldiers, however, refused to surrender, only increasing the vehemence of their opposition to the referendum result.

With the high-profile mutineers melting into the back ground as the battle had, apparently, been won, although the decks had been cleared, the Government was saddled with a policy without a plan.  In retrospect, it would have been sensible to take stock and define, debate and agree a plan that would achieve adequate agreement for implementation.  However, faced with the Gina Miller disruption and the increasingly strident voices of the Conservative remain camp, perhaps May felt she had to move decisively to reassure the electorate before the disgruntled losers hijacked and destroyed the process.  The behaviour of most of both Houses of Parliament thoroughly vindicates this decision.

Even so, she should have been able to count on her coalition majority to carry things through.  But this was not to be.  Those who had skulked below decks during the mutiny now began to show their true colours – they might have said they support the referendum result and the recent manifesto commitments, but they really believed in remaining.  As their own momentum has built they have become increasingly bold culminating with outright rebellion reported this weekend.  As I write, it seems increasingly unlikely that we shall be able to extricate ourselves from the EU.

So back to Collier who argues that the only way out of the increasingly bitter impasse in which we find ourselves is to withdraw Article 50, make a plan, and start again when we are good and ready.  Although there would be a huge risk of the Remain influencers scotching the whole project it may be the only way to avoid some sort of BRINO fudge.  Depressingly, Collier may, have a point?  How far have we come from the words of the Government leaflet sent out to every household during the referendum, “this is your decision, we will implement what you decide.” MPs should be thoroughly ashamed.

Tuesday 19 February 2019

Mushrooms


The Times, concluding its leader on the defection of seven Labour MPs, appears to abandon all pretence of impartiality by concluding that Parliament must either back Theresa May’s deal or delay Brexit (by which, it follows, they mean begin the process by which the whole idea of leaving the EU may be progressively abandoned).  Whatever happened to WTO arrangements upon which, incidentally, the Conservative Front Bench are equally silent?  Whilst the political elite dream of sensible politics and centre ground consensus, mushrooms, crowding to a keyhole and who have come so far in darkness exclaim:

“We too had our lives to live.
You with your light meter and relaxed itinerary,
Let not our naïve labours have been in vain!”

With grateful thanks to my friend Ian for pointing out Derek Mahon’s wonderful poem, “A Disused Shed in Co. Wexford.”

Monday 18 February 2019

MP Carries On


As I said the other day, I attended a meeting of our constituency executive the purpose of which was to endorse the reselection of our sitting parliamentary representative.  We were presented with a rather weak resume of the Brexit situation and the hand-wringing difficulty of getting a deal over the line.  Apparently, the problem lay with various factions of entrenched opinion, for and against and our MP kindly listed the runners and riders for us.  When I spoke, I pointed out that there was one faction of opinion that he had omitted to mention – those who say they want to get a Brexit deal over the line but really want to Remain.  I expressed disappointment in those MPs who supported Mrs May’s Remain Minus sell-out and concluded my remarks with the statement that, with many key votes in future, there would be no blank cheque from me now.  The MP asked me what my question was – I replied that my remarks were not a question, simply a statement of which way I intended to vote.  We then had a secret ballot the result of which was that our MP was reselected.  After the meeting, to clear the air, I had a private word saying notwithstanding my earlier remarks, I fully accepted the majority decision and that he could count upon my full support in other matters in the future. Come to think of it, isn’t that the way democracy is supposed to work when electors have been faced with a binary choice?