"F**k Business!" (and the EU?)


Theresa May rules out second referendumhttps://metro.co.uk/video/theresa-rules-second-referendum-1774942/


If the London Times (Editorial: 2.10,2018) is to be believed, "F**k business" was Boris Johnson's acerbic response to being advised the business community was concerned about the Government's Brexit strategy. It is unlikely that it reflects Mrs May's own considered opinion, even less one which she would want to be projected to a public audience. 

Philip Hammond in common with his boss, an EU 'remainer' forced to lead the retreat, tried to repair the damage by saying, "the Conservative Party is and always has been the party of business." A cynic might suggest that astronomical increases in executive pay, broker bonuses and the fact that not one banker responsible for the 2008 crash has been prosecuted is sufficient confirmation.

Of course ironically Boris is the darling of the Conservative Party and although banned from the main stage, packed out his own side-show at the conference with a stirring call to a clean break although the chances of such or of him taking the top job, look increasingly unlikely.

The same edition of the paper reminded us that it was exactly one hundred years since the great breakthrough of the claimed impenetrable 'Hindenburg Line' between Bellicourt and Bony and the opposing forces were now facing off one another at the entrance of the Great Tunnel 80 feet below the hill. "Somewhere in that black interior" the contemporary report adds, "lies the point where the Australian possession of the tow path ends and the German begins, but probably neither Australian nor German knows where that point is."

If we were to replace the 'Germans' and 'Australians' with the 'EU' and 'UK', it would be hard to find a better or more poignant metaphor for the situation the two sides now find themselves in. For make no mistake, notwithstanding the polite, even convivial, atmosphere in which discussions have taken place, the 'off-piste' Boris quote, may be a more reliable indicator of the true tensions and consequences of Brexit, than all the scripted conference speeches - such as she gave on Wednesday to the Conservative Party Conference. 

She pranced on stage to the sound of Abba's 'The Dancing Queen'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFpYYZjj4I8) 'Waterloo' might have been more appropriate, although sadly Mrs May is no Duke of Wellington. Nor is she renowned for her dancing skills. 

The First World War quote above has resonances on many levels. Even at this late stage with only a few months to go before Britain frees itself from EU bureaucratic control, incredibly the post-Brexit arrangements have still not been agreed. Few are in any doubt the this has resulted from EU intransigence, intended to make the process as difficult as possible, in the hope that the decision to leave will be reversed and to discourage any more of the twenty-seven from doing the same.

Given that the EU Commission has been able to agree trade deals with Japan and Canada without great difficulty, it beggars belief that a country so geographically close, that has had nearly fifty years of progressive conformity on standards and legislation, should find a trade deal so problematical.

So to return to the First World War analogy, Britain finds itself entering a tunnel, with what appears to be Franco/German opposition at the other end, and neither side appearing to know where the other stands or what is waiting to greet us on the other side. It has been said with a certain degree of perspicacity, that the "light at the end of the tunnel could be the on-coming train!"

The 19th Century was dominated by two world wars and their after-effects, one of which was the creation of the European Economic Union, which - building on earlier coal and steel agreements - in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, linked six countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Luxembourg) in a free trade area.

Despite the huge effort Britain made to resist German fascist domination, effectively bankrupting itself and making it dependent on American creditors, and of floating and promoting the idea of European interdependence as a means of preventing further conflict on the continent, it kept itself aloof from the process, only to work hard to get back in retrospectively.  

The decade of British politics that opened with Harold Macmillan and ended with Ted Heath, was dominated by a humiliating process of application and refusal, until after fourteen years of negotiation, the latter achieved what he saw as a great victory and opportunity for the future. It ran parallel to the realisation that the era of Empire was over, with all the commercial advantages it provided, and that an integration with European countries was now the best option for survival and prosperity.

The role of Ted Heath in the process has attracted controversy, particularly in relation to allegations by some that from his Oxford University days he had been recruited by, and subsequently worked for, German military intelligence and that his sexual orientation and proclivities, recently the subject of Wiltshire Police investigation, made him particularly susceptible to both external and internal manipulation and influence. Heath: @39mins in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnZiDxkwgrU

It should be noted that neither of these claims have been objectively proven but a cloud of suspicion and doubt remain that they may have influenced the process of joining the EU in which he considered himself triumphant.

The decision to join was without any reference to the British people. It was effectively the creation of a political elite, within the elected Parliamentary body and was sold on the lie - rather akin to Wilson's assurance that devaluation would 'not affect the value of the pound in your pocket' - that joining this organisation would not result in any loss of sovereignty. In fact as we all now realise, the opposite situation was the case with subsequent treaties making the situation ever more entrenched.

In addition, with the power of hindsight, it may be inferred that rather than stimulating British industry and innovation, it has rather drained it. Not a year has passed when imports from the community area have not exceeded exports nor the payments exceeded grants paid back. Where grants have been paid they have tended to support either the wealthy or largely cosmetic schemes that provide no long-term benefit. 

Meanwhile historic industries such as aircraft, coal and fishing have been decimated, as has large areas of agricultural production in order to support the deeply flawed Common Agriculture Policy. Particularly in the last decade the national debt has mushroomed, whilst public services have been cut back and living standards stagnated on a philosophy of "austerity".

Only the financial sector based in the City of London appears to have prospered, largely reliant on the odious system of unaccountable off-shore trusts where untaxed trillions now reside. This has undoubtedly contributed to the unhealthy north/south divide, the increased gulf between rich and poor, the indebtedness to international finance, a ballooning national debt and the influence of global corporations. Whether a truly independent and sovereign UK remains a possibility even out of the EU is an open question. As always the bankers and international markets hold the strings. 

It is not hard to conclude that in the round, membership of the EU has resulted in further depletion of the UK's relative financial position and that it is the average earner and tax-payer which has largely taken the hit. In view of the net cost of membership of the club for over forty years, both in balance of trade and contributions amounting to untold billions, not to mention the sacrifice in blood and money to save Europe from despotism and anarchy in two world wars, the demand by the EU of 40 billion plus for a leave deal, appears at least ungrateful, at worst extortion!

There is little doubt, despite all the emphasis being placed on trade, the true objective of its founders Robert Schuman Alcide de Gasperi,  Jean Monnet and Konrad Adenauer was a political one aimed at preventing war. In this it would appear to have been successful, although it is impossible to know if peace would have reigned in its absence. The above enshrine a coalition of philosophy and ideals around what might be called a Christian Socialism focusing essentially on the historical conflict between Germany and France, into which the whole world had been dragged. 

But post-war a new Geo-political threat emerged, or was created, between 'democratic' western European nations and those that had come under the control of Stalinist, Communist hegemony, against which a parallel American dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was formed to resist further encroachment.

America had a big stake in European reconstruction, primarily with the Marshall Plan and for the political architecture that survived afterwards, including the promotion of NATO and the EU. It also had a darker side of influence and profit. 

The war between the US and Germany has never been officially declared ended. In spite of the Nuremberg trial and sentences, the US turned a blind eye to thousands of Nazi officials and scientists, secretly preferred or helped to escape as in the notorious 'Operation Paper Clip'. Manipulation and subversion were also employed involving the sacrifice of innocent civilians to prevent Communist infiltration particularly in '80's Italy with 'Operation Gladio'. This may still be operative in slightly different form and for different objectives, and keeping Britain effectively in the EU may be one of them.

The fact that the final deal is to be submitted to another Parliamentary vote, even if approved by the European Council, Commission and Parliament, means that a clean break, or no deal, is highly unlikely. Despite government and parliamentary commitment to fulfilling the will of the British people in the referendum, the majority in parliament is still pro-European and the government's fudge plan the only one likely to be submitted for approval. 

In these circumstances it is highly unlikely, despite its faults, it will be rejected, as a result of which it is likely that Britain will be in an even worse position - what Rees-Mogg has accurately described as that of a 'vassal state' - rendering 'Danegeld', but with no opportunity to influence decisions, except by supplication.

The referendum majority for leaving the EU was a narrow one. Had young people, that is those with a future rather than a past, been able to vote, it would probably have gone the other way. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would if asked today, probably vote to remain. 

None of this puts Mrs May in a strong position and the last election emphasised it. For all her bluster and fancy footwork, she must know it is precarious. But if indeed she does agree to a 'vassal state' compromise to retain access to the free trade area, it will be very hard for anyone to extricate themselves from it, and her place in history will assuredly be even worse than that of the Conservative Prime Minister, who on a wave of desperation and idealism, took the fatal step to join initially.