Labour advsed to put party before country

 (I have a new computer which  seems to change font size at will and I haven't yet learned to do anything about it.  Apologies)


I suppose there's nothing particularly surprising about the title, but this policy was blatantly exposed  in an article by Labour party apologist Owen Jones in last Friday's Guardian.  Under the title, "Go for a soft Brexit, Labour: it will finish off the Tories,"Jones argued that, if in Labour's talks with Mrs May a compromise involving a customs union and "close alignment with the single market"  were reached, this would split the Tories for generations to come and open the door to years of unimpeded Labour rule.

Well, maybe it would, though I'm not all that sure.  The Tories' secret weapon is and always has been, loyalty.  It's over  150 years since they split over the Corn Laws.

But how does our  country benefit from compromise  Jones advocates?  Its other names are Norway + and Common Market 2.0 (though I'm not sure why.)  It  would involve obeying all EU rules, including the four freedoms (free movement of capital, goods, services and - wait for it-  labour ) without any say in the making of them. along with subjection to the jurisdiction of the ECJ without any representation on it. 

So what would be the point of leaving?  Who  would have voted for that  if it had been made explicit in the 2016 referendum?

 Equally misleading ,  Jones believed   that a deal between Labour and Mrs May would  merely cause fury from those remainders who would  be “satisfied by no less than another referendum.” 

How sadly he misjudges us.  This remainer  will be satisfied with nothing less than a revocation of Article 50, an apology to the EU for wasting so much of their time and energy, and a promise to be co-operative and constructive members in the future.  Maybe the second part of this wish-list is pie in the sky, but over  6 million people have signed a petition calling for the first part, and Jones, wearing his Labour Party blinkers, never even mentions us.

   There is a better alternative to a soft Brexit.  If there is no deal before the coming Friday (12th April) and the EU refuses a further extension, then the Liberal Democrats will put forward a motion in parliament on Thursday to revoke Article 50.  Labour should vote for it. The UK is robust enough to survive the furious shrieks of the frustrated Brexiteers and any “yellow vest” disruption they may stir up.  

Then we  can, maybe after a general election get round to tackling, in co-operation with our nearest neighbours, the real problems facing our county, our continent and our planet.

Brexit's muddy waters

I've been too occupied with normal retired life for the past week (local walk on Monday; lunch in Harrogate on Tuesday with a couple of fellow choir members to help me put together  5000 words on the history of the last 25 years of our church; Wednesday hiking  in the Dales with the  local Ramblers group) to take in the details of the Brexit scenario as it has developed.

Briefly, I gather that MPs have  failed to coalesce around any single solution to the problem.   This should surprise no one, since there is no solution.  It cannot be said too often (though now-a-days, in all the faux excitement as to who's up and who's down it is hardly said at all) that there is no solution: no deal is anywhere near as good as the deal we already have by remaining in the EU. 

Mrs May has given up trying to placate the extremists in her cabinet, and has asked (two and a half years too late) Jeremy Corbyn* and the Labour Party (but not, it seems, the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish  Nationalists) to help out.

I think it highly unlikely that Mrs May and Mr Corbyn will come up with any agreement, but if they do, it is bound to be something on the lines of either just remaining  in the Customs Union (Mr Corbyn's option,which "solves" the Irish border problem but prevents the UK negotiating separate trade deals with other economies** so crosses one of Mrs May's red lines)  

Or maybe Mr Corbyn will be even more successful and persuade Mrs May to agree to remain in the Single Market as well (aka the Norway + option or Common Market 2.0)   This is the dream of the softest of the soft Brexiteers and would do least harm to the British economy

But if it is achieved, what is the point?   We shall retain most of the economic advantages of remaining in the EU, but will have to accept all the rules and regulations, including  the Four Freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital and labour - and the greatest of these,as far, we believe, as those who voted leave are concerned, is Labour- ie immigration), plus the jurisdiction of the ECJ, without any say in making the rules and any British representatives on the Court. 

In the very unlikely event of their cobbling together some agreed fudge I home they also agree to put the deal to the electorate in another public vote.

But without a deal we are scheduled to leave on the 12th April- a week tomorrow.  My favoured scenario for this next eight days is therefore that:

• May and Corbyn fail to reach agreement;
• the EU refuse a further extension;
• so, as promised, the Liberal Democrats move in the Commons on Thursday 11th that we Revoke Article 50;
• this is passed, as it almost certainly should be if MPs stick to their published preferences, since nearly all of them except the extremist ERG have already said they against leaving with no deal.

Then, save for the screams of the Brexiteers and a bit of "yellow vest" agitation they may sir up, the  the rest of you can get on with the joys of normal life as well.



* Interesting,  but predictable, is that Tory outrage against Corbyn being involved in policy-making is directed not against his policies, in the EU context or anything else,  but against his person -"a Marxist,"  "unfit to govern."   In sport I understand this is know as playing the man  rather than the ball and is thought to be despicable.  So much for the "playing fields of Eton" ethos.

 *  It was good to hear on the radio yesterday even a Tory spokesperson admitting that  to think the solo UK  would be able to able to negotiate a better international trade deal that the mighty EU is sheer folly.

Brexit: clearing the trees to see the wood

When I worked in Papua New Guinea I discovered that meetings went on and on and on - and then on some more.  Speakers 11, 12  and 13 had to have their say, even if speakers four, five and six had already said it. My "European"(?) attitude of,"we've already said that, so let's move on," cut no ice.  

I realised eventually that, in a country which within living memory had had no or few national forces of law and order, making sure that everyone had had their say was an essential element in getting local decisions accepted in a (usually) peaceable manner.

It is in this spirit that we must view today's debates and "indicative votes" in Parliament. Just a pity that they're taking place in the week we were meant to leave, rather than a couple of years ago.  

It is a commonplace that MPs know perfectly well what they are against but cannot come to any collective agreement on what they are for.  I expect his to be confirmed when the results of the votes are announced tonight.

However, if the debating  has cleared the air and demonstrated what has been plainly obvious to most of us for months if not years - that there is no deal, be it Norway + or Canada-style or EEC 2.0 or whatever, that is anywhere near as good as the deal we currently have by continuing as members of the EU, the day will have been useful.

Then one hopes that the Commons will move on to the crunch on Monday, when I hope the options will be either:

• revoke Article 50, or
• accept Mrs May's deal with the proviso that it be put to a Referendum against the alternative of Remaining. 

Sadly,  Labour Party policy is still to "honour the result of the Referendum" and chief Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg (who has prudently moved many of his financial assets to the Irish Republic so that they remain in the EU) was still enunciating on Radio Four this morning about  17.4 million people having voted for leaving,  without mentioning the 16.1 who voted to Remain, the 12.6 million who didn't vote and the several million, likely to vote Remain,  who weren't allowed to vote.

I'm quite sure that  some MPs feel quite genuinely that not to observe the referendum result would be some form of betrayal.  After all, the then prime minister, David Cameron, although he had no right to do so (no parliament can bind a future parliament) had said that the result would be observed: "No ifs, no buts."

However, one suspects that a very large number of MPs are looking to the interests of their party (as Mrs May and Mr Corbyn are clearly doing), their possibilities of advancement, or their constituency majorities, rather than the ethics of the situation and the good of the nation

I'm sorry to go on and on about this, but if the pro-Brexiteers persist in distorting the narrow majority achieved in the 2016 referendum as a clarion call that must be obeyed, then it behoves those of us who believe that the true national interest is to remain in the EU to point out the more realistic analysis:

• the leave  vote is not "the will of the people," but just over a third of us, with slightly less over a third of us wanting to remain, and over a quarter of us not voting:
•  the referendum was flawed in construction and the campaign distorted by lies, illegalities and false promises:
• with many younger voters now on the register and a few older ones "on another shore and in a greater light" the majority opinion of the electorate has almost certainly changed:

So there is nothing dishonourable  about failing to observe the 2016 result: indeed it would be irresponsible not to do so.

More pre-Brexit musings

I have been much pr-occupied with other matters this week and haven't been able to take in a blow-by-blow account of the Brexit shenanigans.  However, there are one or two things which deserve comment.

First, I did't actually hear it, but Mrs May addressed the nation and told is that it was our   patriotic duty (my emphasis) to persuade our MPs to support her Brexit deal.  The is to turn the truth on its head.  Remember, this whole Brexit folly was instigated not in the national interest, but to protect the Tory Party from seepage  to UKIP.  So what Mrs May is really asking is  for us to help her save the Tory Party.  The national interest, as some 90% of informed opinion is now clear about, is for us to remain in the EU. And Mrs May knows that too: after all, she voted Remain.

Secondly, Mrs May claimed  that the majority of of people are now fed up with Brexit and "just want us (her?) to 'get on with it'."  Well, she may be right about both those assertions but that is not a rational basis for making the  most serious political decision of the last forty-odd  years. Even if many if not most of the public are indeed tired of the debate a true leader's duty in such circumstances is to lead and  persist in looking for the best solution for the nation and not succumb to ephemeral populism.

Thirdly there are serious calls, even from senior conservatives, for Mrs May to be replaced as prime minister.  This is completely  pointless.  The problem, that we cannot after all leave the EU and retain all the benefits of membership, that we can't " have our cake and eat it," remains the same whoever is prime minister.

Fourthly, Walter Bagehot, who more or less defined the British Constitution,  wrote  in defence of the monarchy,  that  people "love a mange more than a ministry." That's probably still true and it's quite likely that picture magazines of the Royal Family  outsell the New Statesman and  perhaps even the Spectator. What is also true is that the political class and media much prefer speculation about personalities rather than discussion of the issues (or "ishues" as the late great Tony Benn put it.)  Sadly we're now in this phase and acres of print and hours of air-time are wasted in how long Mrs May's premiership will last and whether it's Johnson (ouch), Gove, Leadsome or whoever will replace her.  This is a complete dereliction of duty at this critical time.



Finally, yesterday's march for a "People's Vote" numbered over a million.  At the same time more than 5 million (and counting) have put their names to a petition calling on MPs to Revoke Article 50.  I suspect a goodly number of the marchers now take this view too.

With a week to go it is still possible and legally practical for our MPs to cut to the quick and take this decision.  It just needs courage.

Brexit: no sauce for the gander

Nearly three years ago, in the EU referendum, 37% of those entitled to do so voted one way, 34% voted the other and 27% didn't bother to vote.  Lots of the people  most seriously  affected by the outcome weren't allowed to vote, the campaign was fuelled by lies and false promises, there was some illegal activity, and possibly foreign interference.

A "meaningful vote" on the the deal to implement the result of the referendum was scheduled  to take place in parliament last December, but it was postponed because the government felt that they wouldn't get the result they wanted.

It was this year, on the 15th January,  just two months ago, that the government permitted the "meaningful vote" to take place. After extensive debate in which every possible angle was explored in conditions designed to ensure fairness and truthfulness, their deal was defeated by 432 votes to 202 (a majority of more than two to one - a far cry from 37% to 34%.)

However, battered but undaunted, the government subjected their deal to another "meaningful vote" last week, on the 12th  March.  After yet more extensive debate under controlled conditions the deal was defeated by 391 to242.  The gap is narrowing!

So next week we are to have yet another "meaningful vote" designed to enable the government to get its way.

Strangely, the somewhat dubious result of the referendum result of three years ago is given the status  of sacred writ which cannot be challenged, yet the government can have as many goes as it likes to test to destruction the overwhelming view of the Commons in order to get its way.

Logic has been thrown out of the window, along with so much else that has been the proud heritage of British democracy.

Brexit: where now?

At last the option of revoking Article 50 has surfaced in the mainstream (rather than just on this Blog.)  Mrs May gave it as an option in her speech in the Commons  last night  night in which she acknowledged the second massive defeat of her deal.  The presenter of the BBC 1 then mentioned it on the 10pm bulletin, and it has been cited again on the news this morning.

I'm surprised that this oblivious course has taken so long to emerge as a serious possibility.

For MPs to revoke Article 50 is the simplest way to get us out of the mess they have put us in.  The other options, in which they try to further defer decisions, or thrust them on to someone else, all have complications which have received little atention.

Remember that the EU has indicated that the maximum postponement they have in mind is two months - maybe three at the most.

The option with the most steam behind it is a "People's Vote."  That would take, at an uninformed guess, at least six months to set up, and  there would be much acrimonious wrangling as to the actual question(s). they could be: May or No-deal:  May or Remain; or a three way option,  May, Leave, Remain ( and how would we count that?)

Labour's preferred option is a General Election.  That could just about fit into a two month time frame.  The problems here are threefold:

1)  Labour probably wouldn't win - the most likely outcome is another balanced parliament with the Tories as the largest party.and so the same deadlock as now:
2) Even if Labour did win a working majority, their proposals of remaining in "a", rather than "the"  customs union and single market sound like the original Brexiteer proposals of having  all the benefits of membership of the EU with none of the obligations, or "having your cake and eating it, which the EU would reject.(even if they agreed to re-open negotiations with a different government
3) Voters have a habit of deciding General Elections on issues other than the one(s) for which they were called.  Probably Labour would prefer this.

Both options sidetrack the issue of the EU Elections to be held in June.  If we haven't yet left we presumably have to take part.  Can we really cope with that, and a general Election or a "People's vote" at the same time?  Voter fatigue would probably lead to very poor turnouts and open the results to accusations of lack of legitimacy.

 The only viable option is for MPs to grasp the nettle and vote to revoke Article 50.  They have 15 days to do it.  Easy easy,  if they have the guts.

If MPs take this bold step there will, of course, be outrage, some of it synthetic, whipped up by the frustrated chief Brexiteers, and much of it perfectly legitimate, from the (I suspect very small) minority who sincerely believe that Britain as a whole would be a happier and more successful country outside the EU, and the much larger number who feel, legitimately, that the political elite have ignored their predicament for too long and so used the Referendum vote to take a swipe a the system.

There will be grief, there may even be disturbances, but we shall survive.

The treacle tins  of old used to bear the slogan "Out of the strong came forth sweetness."  If MPs can find the strength to take this boldest step we may then, freed from the burden of Brexit, have the time, energy and willl to build, along with our neighbours and within the EU, a society that really does "work for everyone"

Sweet indeed.

Brexit: the Satruday-Morning Pictures ploy

In the late 1940s and early 50s the cinemas put on "Saturday Morning Pictures" for we kids.  There were highly comical "shorts" by Laurel and Hardy, Abbot and Costello et al, various other bits and pieces, and always a serial, usually a Cowboy.  This invariably had a weekly "cliff hanger" ending, though usually, rather than falling off a cliff,  it was the heroine  or similar tied to a railway line as an express, belching smoke and steam, rapidly approached.  This was to ensure that we turned up, complete with our threpences  (three old pence) the following week.

It is hugely embarrassing to find our British government behaving in the same childish was:  an RAF plane on standby to fly Mrs May to Strasbourg yesterday, last minute "concessions" wrung from the EU, Mrs May presents her "triumph" to the public at 11h20 last night, just in time to swing the "meaningful vote" today.

We shall soon find out if "disaster" is averted: if the heroine is saved.

The plan, we are told, is that MPs will vote on the modified deal today.

If they vote it down they will vote tomorrow on whether or not to rule out a "no-deal" exit.

Then on Thursday they will vote on whether or not to ask for an extension to Article 50 .

Dull as all that sounds, the next thee days are the most crucial in Britain's post war political history. It is  appalling that the issue, in one of the most experienced and sophisticated democracies the world has yet known, is as fictional and farcical as kids' cinema.

MPs should bear in mind when voting:

• the 2016 Referendum was called, not in the interests of the nation (until UKIP stirred up the mud, membership of the EU was about 16th on the list of voters' concerns) but to preserve the unity of the Tory party and defend it from seepage of support  to UKIP;
• the referendum was ill-constructed, without any of the normal safeguards that even a music society or golf club would have in a move to change its constitution.  All parties, MPs and peers are complicit in this, including the Liberal Democrats.  What on earth do we pay all those posh lawyers £300 a day to attend the House of Lords if they let such a sloppy piece of legislation pass through?
• the referendum campaign was fuelled by lies, false promises, scorn for the facts, a biassed and largely foreign-owned press, marred by illegalities and even possibly subjected to foreign influence;
• the result was a narrow majority (52% to 48%) of those who voted in favour of Leave.  Before he'd realised they had won, even Leave's leader said that if the result were so narrow, then there should be a re-run,  and it has to be remembered that over a quarter of those entitled to vote didn't, and those on whom the result would have the greatest impact (16 and 17 year-olds, and EU citizens of other countries living in the UK) weren't allowed to vote;
• that vote is now nearly three years old. It never was "the will of the people" - :just a bit more than a third of us.  Current polling suggests that, with the entry of most of those 16 and 17 year-olds who overwhelmingly favour Remain onto the register, the deaths of many of the mainly older Leave supporters, and in response to the facts which have emerged  which show the damage Brexit will do, public opinion has changed;. 
• Consequently, respecting the 2016 result as an "instruction" from the British people is not a valid stance: indeed, with the interests of the nation as a whole at heart, it would be irresponsible to implement it.  In short: "When you're in a hole, stop digging." 

As I've argued consistently on this Blog, the quickest and easiest way to "stop digging" is for MPs to have the guts to vote to withdraw Article 50, say sorry to the rest of the EU for the trouble we've caused, and promise to be co-operative and constructive members in the future.  There are just 17 days left for this to happen, if parliament works weekends

If that provokes the Brexiteers to stir up a bit of "yellow vest" agitation on the streets, we'll get over it . (It will be nothing compared to the Miners' Strike)*.  And if some MPs lose their seats for doing their best for their constituents, that's a small price to pay for the future respect and prosperity of the nation they are sworn to serve.

Failing that, MPs should vote to  put whatever deal they come up with to the people, this time with proper safeguards.

* As depicted by local boy David Peace's "GB84", which , late in the day perhaps, I just happen to be reading.