That was the week that was!
by Tim Veater.

"Out!"



"In!"


https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&q=boris+johnson+images&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6-ufj49zjAhULCsAKHVsLBKcQ7Al6BAgHEBs&biw=1248&bih=844#imgrc=1JkzFIVsgxDg8M:



"A week is a long time in politics", is the famous phrase by British ex-Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. In this context, it is a long time since we have had such an eventful week in the UK House of Commons.

On Wednesday 24th July, 2019, Mrs May appeared for the last time to answer MP's questions (a weekly event) in Parliament. She did very well and despite being evicted by a rebellion by her own party and colleagues, was cheered from the chamber with a standing ovation - a very unusual event which lasted long after she had departed - in tears.

The next day (Thursday) it was all change. 

The new Prime Minister Boris Johnson took the stage, surrounded by a fresh Cabinet of seventeen new faces. 

This was not just a change of style, from competent manager to rhetorical ideologue, but in theory at least a significant change in direction and emphasis - from three times rejected EU inspired and dictated bureaucratic 'Withdrawal Agreement', complete with Northern Ireland 'backstop' that effectively prevents an UK from ever leaving, to one of determination to leave by the 31st October, agreement or not.

It cannot have escaped notice that the EU hierarchy has never wanted Britain to leave and accordingly has made it as difficult as possible for it to do so. The reasons are obvious but may bear repetition.

Britain is the second biggest contributor to EU finances - the figures vary but range between ten and twenty billion pounds a year. EU finances and plans will undoubtedly be thrown into disarray without it and may well destabilise the already shaky Euro. And this is without taking into account the detrimental effect on European exports, that has always been in Europe's favour, worth billions of pounds.

It was important to the EU trading block and nascent political entity to prove to any other member state that desertion from the great soviet idea, would come at the price of exclusion from the market and its other advantages - the southern and eastern states particularly.

Nor can the fact that a majority of British MP's (72%) were in favour of remaining or that this was also reflected in the Civil Service and metropolitan/financial/commercial elite have helped to secure a real legal and economic break. 

Throughout, true independence has been frustrated by a combination of these centres of control and influence. Because of it the EU extracted a heavy price for leaving on typically fabricated grounds, with a forty billion price-tag that can only be described as akin to a medieval ransom or modern day extortion. Mrs May weakly and embarrassingly acceded to EU demands.

Britain paid a big price to join the 'Club' of then six, but who could have predicted that it would have to pay an even bigger price just to leave it? 

An ailing Harold Macmillan could only see Europe from the perspective of a disappearing Empire, and guided by principally two senior politicians, Duncan Sandys and Ted Heath, the accession was finally agreed - without a referendum and on a false prospectus - in 1972. It was Heath averred his greatest achievement, which in retrospect, may not have been saying much! 

Perhaps it is worth noting that it was the Conservative Party that planted the idea of an United States of Europe to prevent another war; strove (belatedly) to join the Common Market, eventually achieved it; agreed to the Lisbon Treaty; and then argued to increase its membership to the current twenty-eight. Paradox or not, it is now the same party that is leading the charge to take us out. Meanwhile the sceptical Labour Party has now shifted to a position:  unless there is an acceptable agreement, it will campaign to remain! You really couldn't make it up!

Who knows how history would have played out if Britain had not joined. It certainly did not help much in the 1970's, an era of strikes, blackouts, inflation and civil unrest. In the intervening years billions of pounds have passed to the European block, whilst billions more of assets have passed to foreign entities. Can anyone tell us whether we would have been better or worse off as a nation if we had not joined? 

It certainly appears to me to have been a net loss, saved only by external investment by foreign - principally Japanese, Middle East, Chinese and Indian - capital and importantly a huge black and illegal economy based on drugs and sex, estimated currently at about a hundred billion a year to London, the consequences of which is there for all to see. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/this-country-s-shadow-economy-is-worth-one-fifth-of-its-gdp/

So returning to last week in Parliament, despite the change in political leadership, one thing was clear, leaving aside the positivity and optimism injected by Boris, which may not be more than whimsical rhetorical flair, of which he is undoubted master, neither in his confrontation with May or Johnson did Corbyn do well. In fact he was trounced by each in different ways.

They say it is the mark of a good artist to know when to leave off and add no more words or paint. Further it is the mark of a Gentleman not to attempt to kick a man, and more particularly a woman, when they are down. By ignoring both rules, Corbyn was made to look ungenerous and childish by May and disconnectedly ineffectual by Johnson the very next day. What is called in the business I believe a 'double whammy', from which he might or might not recover.

A more astute debater and politician would have allowed Mrs May to rest on her laurels, however faded. He didn't need to shower with praise, neither did he need to make political points off a retreating and vanquished opponent. He should have realised good natured humour and satire would have been far more effective. He should have feinted with damn praise!

As it was, before she sat down, her pièce de résistance and parting shot, that had he been a floating vessel, would have sunk him, was that Despite the "two sword length separation" she was still able to land the fatal blow, to cheers from her own side: "As a party leader who has accepted her time was up, perhaps the time is now for him to do the same." Even Mr Corbyn had to smile, a smile that admitted he was dead in the water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5reyTOrPvEQ

The next day's joust with Johnson left him equally marooned, after he made it clear Labour policy had shifted to 'remain'. Clearly the tacticians had won the argument over positioning themselves for a General Election that appears inevitable if the EU does not relent on the 'backstop' and Parliament does not relent on blocking a no-deal exit. Such a General Election will have to come before Halloween (!!!!) and would be fought on the Brexit issue along party lines - Conservative and Brexit Party v. Labour, Liberal and SNP, though with internal fissures and divisions in both camps.

Johnson was chosen partly to beat Corbyn at the polls. The former is on the ascendant, the latter in decline, but both blocks are divided. Johnson seized the high ground of democracy, claiming it was now the Conservatives that represented the public will, as expressed in the Referendum and it was Labour that opposed it. Corbyn's Marxist side-kick, John McDonnell was so frustrated he had to seek out the jug of water! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNHcipybhq0

My feeling is, given that many of the most ardent leave constituencies are Labour and the country is just fed up with the EU's bullying tactics and protracted negotiations that haven't even started to cover any trade deal, the margin to leave would be even bigger than in the referendum. This would give Johnson the unequivocal vote of confidence and parliamentary majority he needed and secure his power for another five year term. It would also end Corbyn's leadership of his party.

Johnson has hit the ground running, but whether his legs are capable to keep up, remains to be seen. I think his instincts are sound, looking to support the 'Northern Powerhouse' so-called and paying attention to the Union by immediately visiting Manchester, Edinburgh and Wales (presumably Northern Ireland also which has its own profound political problems) Further the promised government largess to every sector after years of 'austerity' can only mean one thing: preparation for an election either now or later.

Another notable feature of the seventeen new Cabinet Ministers, last but not least, the appointment of the ebullient MP for NE Somerset, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who as Leader of the House and Lord President of the (Privy) Council, was immediately thrown into the fray answering parliamentary questions on Thursday before Johnson appeared. 

If in pop star terms the latter required a 'warm-up act', none could have performed better, nor could a more qualified person be chosen for the post. Both Rees-Mogg and Johnson have a certain charisma that connects and a power to use humour to good effect, not equalled since William Hague. Should Johnson in the words of Winston Churchill, as relayed by his grandson, "bugger it up", we undoubtedly see here the putative replacement.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YwOb0GGK1Y

And finally, in this notable week of political manoeuvring, which  will, as with all former political events, fade with time, and when far more significant issues relating to the impact of man on the ecosystem appear to ebb and flow like the sea, I noticed that on Friday 26th July, the legendary scientist and creator of the Gaia Theory, Professor James Lovelock, came of age - one hundred! 

The last time time I heard him speak some years ago, he was very pessimistic about the earth and of the humans that rely on it. He said they were past saving - or words to that effect.  The following is a more recent interview that I am yet to watch but I doubt his opinion has much changed. https://news.sky.com/video/why-gaia-theory-is-more-relevant-today-11772797


At a time of unprecedented forest fires in Arctic Circle, these are ominous premonitions that we would do well to ponder and act on if disaster to all, far beyond those predicted for Brexit, are not to be experienced in the next century. END.