Who Has Been Humiliated?

The TV media were unable to conceal their excitement at the prospect of Brexit finally being cancelled - sorry, no deal being taken off the table as they say, disingenuously.  Headlines in tomorrow's press will trumpet the Prime Minister's humiliation at the hands of our Parliament.  But it is not the Prime Minister who has been humiliated, it is the 17.4 million voters, detested and ignored by their members of parliament,who will be feeling more wretched tonight.  Meanwhile, high fives in Brussels as our Parliament, on behalf of the EU gets on with the shameful business of reversing the result of the referendum.

Half a Loaf

I’ve said this before with reference to playing the game of rubber Bridge for money, the sort of game for more money than I could afford to lose was the most stimulating and concentrated the mind wonderfully, that the successful money winners had learned the distinction between the best possible outcome and the best outcome possible. In the former case, players always strive to post the top score on every deal, regardless of the circumstances. They usually lose money overall. The more canny professional will take all the surrounding circumstances into account and aim for the best outcome possible given the circumstances - who he is playing with and against, the state of the rubber, odds and chances and the inevitable impact of lady luck, to name but a few.  They usually win money overall. More importantly, by being sensitive to the skill and character of various partners and opponents, the true professional preserves the relationships upon which his livelihood depends. SJ Simon, a founder of the enduring “Acol” system and author of the wonderful book, “Why You Lose at Bridge,” expounded this concept in a chapter titled “Half a Loaf.”

In the drawn-out Brexit shouting match, I’d like to aim for a top score and my inclination is for a clean break, a blank sheet of paper from which to negotiate a new relationship which frees us from the dead weight of the EU and puts us back in charge of our own fortune. I say inclination, honestly, because I have no qualifications for predicting the outcomes of various Brexit scenarios – my heart says the clean break scenario would be my best possible result.  There is a number of people, but not a majority, who feel that way and I was recently asked to sign a petition advocating, specifically, a “no-deal Brexit.”  Whilst that is where I hope we could end up, I declined to sign for reasons that will become clear.

Indeed, the sky may not fall in on 1 November, the Conservatives may win the forthcoming election with a decent majority and begin harvesting the fruits of independence with a proper conservative agenda of social and economic progression. Old wounds may be healed and the hysterical reactions, on both sides, during the Brexit debate be forgotten. But they probably won’t, and like the bridge professional who must cut for partners again tomorrow night, we need to preserve an honourable relationship with both the internal opponents of Brexit, in itself, and our European neighbours with whom a strategic partnership is axiomatic. Finally, regardless of the outcome, I doubt if we should be forgiven by a large percentage of the electorate if we ploughed on without attempting to negotiate an arrangement with the EU.

We need to try to get a deal even if we fail doing it. Recent signs from Biarritz and hints from commentators show that there appears to be some willingness from Brussels to negotiate, even revisit the cursed Withdrawal Agreement. Of course, should Brussels sense that the UK parliament will block no deal then they will shut up shop and wait for the likes of Phillip Hammond to do their dirty work for them. It is, therefore, essential, that we are able to push the EU to their limit up to the summit on October 17^th and to be able to draw down our shutters if the outcome is unacceptable to UK. But to get to October 17^th, we need to repel the legislative efforts of those parties who proclaim to be against a no deal Brexit but, in truth, would seek to call the whole thing off if they could. This means deploying all practicable measures within the Geneva Convention of parliamentary procedure, just as our opponents have vowed to do.  Simultaneously, we need to neutralise the threat of a vote of no confidence and this, surely, demands keeping potentially wavering Conservative MPs onside, at least for the time being (for with whom would Brussels negotiate during the precious time available until 31st October if the Government fell)?  So, we must continue to act and proclaim in pursuit of a deal.   Then, with the Government and the policy intact, we should be in the position to walk away from the EU Summit with either a practicable draft of a deal, ie, half a loaf that could be sold to our parliament, or nothing at all. No fudges and no more delays.  In the event of Brussels not playing ball, serendipity would strike and we should emerge with best possible deal having played our hand, honourably, for the best deal possible.  Either way, a battle-fatigued Parliament and their electorate may accept either outcome as having been honestly achieved in the circumstances and call an end to Brexit hostilities accordingly.  It seems like the best chance we have got.

With Apologies to Private Eye

Brexit Risk

If the risks exposed in the leaked Yellowhammer document are to be avoided the PM must secure a deal with the EU. So warns the Times editorial today.  Presumably, the government has concluded, unless the Editor knows better, that Brexit risk is manageable. Just because some of the residual risk cannot be mitigated is no reason to try to secure a deal at any cost. Risk Registers are just that – a table of possibilities, however remote, and no responsible Project Manager should be without one.

Hammond Warned Voters about No Deal Before we Voted in the Referendum

Here we have the then Foreign Secretary talking specifically on the record, on 2 March 2016, at Chatham House and setting out the alternatives to voting to remain in the EU.   When, now over 3 years later, he tries to claim that "nobody voted to be worse off" let us just remind ourselves of his conclusion:

"Why should we take a leap in the dark?  Why would we risk the effect of years of uncertainty on the British economy.  Why would we take that chance with our childrens' future,  risking our influence our prosperity and our security when by voting to remain we can have the best of both worlds in a reformed EU rather than the worst of both outside."

That sounds like a warning that voting NO was voting to be poorer, in his words, the worst of both worlds outside the EU - and we still voted NO.

Earlier in the same speech he refers to an exit from the EU on WTO terms as "the default option." It was quite clear then, as it is now, that a WTO exit was the default option so why is he not being honest with us now and backing the Government to force the EU to negotiate an honourable deal instead of proposing a deal at any price which he knows will never be acceptable either to our precious parliamentarians of the hapless citizens who elected them?

Sanctimania

Public opinion seems to be accepting that saying hurtful things, deserved or not by the recipient, may be hateful, if hateful could ever be defined in law. Nevertheless, I sense that the public mood feels that hurtful remarks are not, generally, consistent with the archaic principle of fair play. So just when we feel that our old fashioned habit of slagging off odd balls isn’t really cricket, however humourlessly intended, up pops St Matthew of Parris whose 70 year old skin is so thick that his sanctimonious benevolence now extends to those who ignorantly take his mickey. In an act of universal forgiveness, bravely, he cites the children’s rhyme that sticks and stones may hurt my bones etc. One wonders whether he will also be turning the other cheek?

Giving Up Alcohol

The 10th anniversary came and went without me noticing.  As a friend remarked at lunch the other day, "you don't even think about it these days do you?"  I don't.  The benefits in terms of alertness, concentration and sleeping all manifest themselves within days and in about 100 further days the chemical cravings have faded.  In the absence of temptation,  thereafter, its up to the individual.  I decided to carry on and haven't regretted it for one second - I feel good, sleep like a top and have saved myself (tens of ) thousands.  Of course there were social difficulties on the way, adjusting to events or gatherings at which alcohol has been the central attraction, for one.  Resisting the temptation to make a sarcastic rejoinder to the patronising, "are you sure you won't just have a soft drink," required some temperance and the boredom of listening to ones friends talk increasing scribble at increasing volumes was tiresome.  But that is all in the distant past and, as my friend said, I don't even think about it these days.  I recommend it!