Les Français: aidez nous.

This afternoon Mrs May is to meet with the French President to beg for an extension.

My friend John Cole of Bradford suggested we write to M Macron to prepare him and help to promote a constructive dialogue.

So over the weekend we sent him the following Email:

Monsieur le Président,

Nous sommes deux members du Parti Libéral britanique.  
 Notre parti est depuis  le début un partisan 
enthousiaste de l’Union européenne. Maintenant, nous
 avons honte des singeries de notre gouvernement. 
Nous sommes deux des plus  de 6 millions d’hommes 
qui ont signé une pétion en annulation de l’article 
50.

 Nous espérons que notre parlement aura le bon sens 
de le faire avant la fin de la semaine. Si ce n'est pas le cas, nous vous prions d'appuyer l'octroi d'une  nouvelle prolongation d'au moins un an.

Partir n’est certainement pas le but de la population
. Déjà, les sondages d’opinion montrent que 55% sont
en faveur de rester dans l’Union européenne. 
 Dans un an, nous pourrons peut-être obtenir une 
majorité encore plus convaincante.

Ensuite, nous pourrons peut-être rester dans l'Union européenne et nous associer à vous et à nos autres voisins pour construire une Europe meilleure et plus just.

Veillez agréer, Monsieur le président,  d'accepter l'assurance de nos salutations distinguées

Translation: 
We are two members of the British Liberal Democrat 
Party. Our party has been an enthusiastic supporter
 of the European Union since its inception. Now we

 are ashamed of the foolish antics of our government.
 We are two of the more than 6 million people who 
signed a petition for the withdrawal of Article 50.

We hope that our parliament will have the good sense 
to do that before the end of the week. If they do not
, then we beg you to grant us another extension

 of at least a year.

Leaving is certainly not the will of the people. 
Already the opinion polls show  that 55% are in 
favour of remaining in the EU. In a year we should 
be able to obtain an even more convincing majority.
Then we may be able to remain in the EU and work with
 you and our other neighbours to build a better and 
fairer Europe.
Yours etc.,


There is a typo in first word of the super-
respectful conclusion. It should  be  "veuillez" 
meaning "we beg you" rather than "veillez" which 
means, among other things "sit up with" such as a 
fractious child or a dying relative. 
 Maybe it wasn't such a mistake after all.

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.