Olympic Example to EU Whingers

Without wishing to inflict the “commentator’s curse” on the remaining Team GB competitors it seems likely that we are on course for our best ever Olympic haul of medals and may even finish second in the world table.  We are told that Lottery funded investment, expertly targeted, along with the sheer dedication and hard work of the athletes are the pillars of success.  Given that Team GB have set such splendid examples of financial ingenuity, dedication and industry, who now could be afraid of leaving the EU?

Feminista

Philip Davies MP makes some reasonable remarks about militant feminism.  The reaction is entirely predictable - "point and shriek, isolate and swarm*." Exactly - the hysteria of the response makes Philip Davies' point rather nicely, I think.

*Thanks to James Delingpole for this concise tactical summary.

Let's Get On With Leaving

Let’s get this straight – we voted to leave.  We voted to leave because we wanted to take back control of key sovereign functions.  In other words, we voted in the referendum about how we are governed.  That is the sole right of “we” the people and it is logical that Parliament, being only the representatives of the people, should have no influence in the process, let alone a veto on the outcome.

So we are to leave but upon what terms and conditions?  James Forsyth suggests any Brexit deal should face 3 tests:

•  Will UK law be supreme over EU law

• Could UK make its own trade deals

• Would there be parliamentary control of immigration?

Those increasingly hysterical Remainers, who just do not get it, insist that leaving the EU depends upon doing a deal over the “Single Market.”  They warn that negotiating new agreements with the EU will require compromise.  They must know that any deal, such as a EEA arrangement would come with strings and would, given the unpleasant noises coming from Brussels, be unlikely to pass any of James Forsyth’s tests.  Even so, it seems extremely doubtful that the 27 self-interests could be satisfied within a reasonable timescale and we should assume, therefore, that a deal over the Single Market is impracticable. 

The Reminers would seize upon this impasse as proof of the stupidity of voting to leave in the first place and, doubtless, continue to press for a parliamentary trumping of the popular vote or a correcting referendum.

But is the single market the holy grail? Is it on the critical path to our negotiated departure or is it a diversion to deflect the Leave cause from getting on with the job?  John Redwood has some uncomplimentary words for the single market. He saw it as “a simple power grab by the EU authorities, using the cover of the markets as means of taking over large areas of legislative authority from the member states.”  He goes on, “too many still seem to think the single market is some priceless creation. I remember it being a series of compromises over very often badly drafted texts, where the main aim seemed to be to establish EU control or involvement in the particular area covered by the draft law. Nor is it true to say you cannot trade with member states if you no longer belong to the single market. The rest of the world trades daily with the EU without being members.”

It could be argued that we are wasting our time obsessing about the single market.  Indeed, there is an opportunity cost which is being frittered away daily whilst we dither and pretend that we could pull off a meaningful negotiation with the 27 amongst whom there is unlikely to be any flexibility at all.  In the words of the “EU-phamisms” cartoon in Private Eye:

“Out” means a long delay, followed by protracted negotiations of two to ten years, resulting in a situation the same as, or slightly worse than, “In.”

So let us not be taken in by the apparent virtue of the Remainers seeking a deal over the single market.  They know that one is not on offer and seek to frustrate the withdrawal process by pretending to be acting in the best interests of UK.  Patrick Minford, writing in the Telegraph on Thursday concludes, “Mr Davis and ultimately Theresa May, should save us all time and policy delays by simply walking away from the EU, lock stock and barrel.”

So, if Brexit really does mean Brexit then let us squelch the whinging and get on with the business of leaving.  I’m with Patrick Minford!

Submission

I have just started reading Michel Houellebecq’s chilling novel, “Submission,” when I came across this rather pertinent observation:

"It may well be impossible for people who have lived and prospered under a given social system to imagine the point of view of those who feel it offers them nothing, and who can contemplate its destruction without any particular dismay." (from "Submission" by Michel Houellebecq)

I thought it was somewhat relevant to the discussion our Conservative Policy Forum held on 12 July.  It seemed to us that there was a great deal that grassroots political organisations, the Conservative Policy Forum (CPF) in particular, could do to reflect the membership view on a fast-moving political landscape.  Difficult though it may be for the ivory-towered elite to accept, we, the electorate, want to be in on the debate.  Call us old-fashioned but we feel it is our role to tell Westminster what we think and not the other way round.  Ironically, as party canvassers, we are exhorted to knock on doors and listen to what the voters say.  Unfortunately, none of those who have lived and prospered under the current political consensus appear ready to listen in their turn.  Indeed, had the views of members been taken as more indicative of the country at large, the whole Government strategy over the referendum may have been different.  Sadly, on the evidence so far of business as usual, the referendum result does not appear to have provided an effective wake-up call.

If you want to know what could happen next, read Submission!