Brexit: Deal or No Deal?


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brexit+contempt+vote+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC-LKrzYjfAhWKB8AKHbDVAcMQ7Al6BAgHEBs&biw=1264&bih=865#imgrc=Ot_J4sEwoWSSaM:


Government loses unprecidented 'Contempt' vote on the 4th December, 2018.  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brexit+contempt+vote+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC-LKrzYjfAhWKB8AKHbDVAcMQ7Al6BAgHEBs&biw=1264&bih=865#imgrc=mG9PozBaT4epEM:

"Yes" and "No" are philological and philosophical opposites that cannot be reconciled. They are also by their very nature divisive. The same goes for their close cousins, "In" and "Out". In just a few words, that is the nature of the dilemma facing the British public and State, to be decided by politicians in Parliament in the next few days. Mrs May has presented options that fall between a 'rock and a hard place', namely her deal or no deal. However very few are satisfied with it for varying reasons and her 'Titanic' is likely to sink with no sign of a 'Carpathia' in sight. As captain, her prospects for survival do not look good.

Her argument presented forcefully, and one cannot be other than impressed with her stamina, persistence and mastery of detail, is this, after two years of endeavour and negotiation, is the best deal she can get. This position is of course supported by the President of the European Commission, John Claude Juncker who has 'warned' MPs that "this is the only deal possible. For any Englishman with even a superficial knowledge of British history or of the British character, is likely to regard this as at least an impertinence if not a threat and treat it as such.

All are agreed that the decision is momentous for Britain's future welfare and prosperity but it is hard to dismiss, despite reassuring words that those on the mainland are close friends, there are very real dangers and antipathies reminiscent of those that led to military conflict in two world wars, and in which Britain bled itself dry to prevent tyranny and fascism. Given this relatively recent history and the fact that after nearly fifty years Britain is wholly aligned with the EU on so many fronts, it comes as something of a surprise that it should present so many obstacles to amicable separation on reasonable terms, with future relationship subject to negotiation as would be case with any other sovereign state. 

It would seem to me that the opposite has been the case and that the EU negotiators have made the separation as difficult as possible. It is one thing to require compliance with conditions to join an organisation as indeed happened in 1972, quite another to leave it which smacks of exaction and extortion. "We will not release you without a ransom tied to conditions." The principle of an un-itemised, un-audited (very EU that!) payment of at least forty billion has apparently already been agreed, which has all the hallmarks of a medieval ransom. Only the hostages are lacking - or are they? 

That appears to have been provided by the population of Ulster via the the pernicious "back-stop" arrangement that can never be released without the permission of the EU! If that isn't proof of 'vassallage' nothing is. And the forty billion, waved by with reference to unspecified "legal commitments" (isn't it amazing how according Prime Ministerial whim, 'money trees' appear or disappear on the horizon akin to desert mirage?) will be just the start of the financial drain, during a protracted 'implimentation period' that could go on almost indefinitely. 

Britain in its long and distinguished history, has many instances of such: to the Romans, Danes, Normans, Spanish, Dutch and of course the French. Henry VIII wrested independence from the Pope and indirectly the Holy Roman Emperor; Queen Elizabeth I from Spain; William III and Mary from France, with whom conflict continued for more than a century. 

The twentieth Century was dominated by a bankrupting contest first with Germany, then with the USSR, but throughout Britain maintained its ability to run its own affairs and at least enshrine the principle of 'no taxation without representation', within the framework of an ancient, albeit largely unwritten, constitution. Since 1972 this has been abrogated for trading advantages. The parallel with Esau despising his birthright and selling it for 'a mess of pottage', is unavoidable.

'Mess of pottage' may well be an apt description of the nature of the negotiations undertaken by this Prime Minister and Government. The situation is indeed a 'mess' and we appear to 'be in the soup'! Given the circumstances it was unlikely to be otherwise. First, although there was a simple majority that voted to leave there was a sizable minority that wanted to remain, and as I have already stated, those two positions are irreconcilable and any attempt to reconcile them was doomed to failure. We are reminded of the saying that ' A house divided against itself cannot stand'.

Once the principle of a referendum and its terms had been agreed by David Cameron, the Cabinet and Parliament, its result had to be honoured. It may in retrospect have been wiser to have set a higher percentage bar but not having done so with the Scottish referendum, it would have been hard to justify. Cameron promptly resigned, some might say, ran away from the problem he had facilitated and May became PM by default so the second weak link in the chain was installed namely having a 'remainer' to lead the negotiations. 

The election she unexpectedly called, in contradiction of her own undertaking (Mrs May has created something of a reputation for failing to keep her word which bodes ill for her current Brexit assurances) undermined her position both with her party and the EU. Had Gove not back-tracked to secure his own position, repeated again now, we might at least have had believers in Brexit led by Johnson, to negotiate the departure.

Then May's choice of Brexit Secretary was not only flawed but disingenuous. Flawed because David Davis hardly presented an appropriate image or attitude - the jovial fool to the serious and urbane Michel Barnier. Davis has been quoted by Oliver Kamm in the Times as saying, "What is the requirement of my job? I don't have to be very clever. I don't have to know that much. I do just have to be calm." M. Barnier was said to be surprised by the light-weight character of his opposite number. Would Mr Rees-Mogg have been similarly disdained? Was this done on purpose by May to put us at a disadvantage or was it yet another example of her bad judgement?

But it was also disingenuous because it is clear that Mrs May had no intention of delegating the process or ultimate decision making to the Brexit Secretary. Despite his imposing title he proved to be a misnomer. The process was actually run from the Cabinet Office placing the Brexit Secretary in an invidious - in fact impossible - position, and which contributed to his decision to resign after nearly two years, quickly followed by his replacement Dominic Raab after only three months! We shall have to see how the optimistic Stephen Barclay lasts in the post.

Would it not have been better if from the start the United Kingdom had made it clear it wished to leave unilaterally on WTO terms unless and until the EU, in its own interests as well as that of the UK's, came back with improvements. This would have placed the onus on the EU in order to secure the 100 million trade benefit and any negotiated additional contributions post brexit. Time could then have been devoted to specific trade issues, rather than the generalities antecedent to them. This I think is what Boris Johnson had in mind but was not allowed to implement.

All these factors have contributed to the unmistakable conclusion that the current proposed 'deal', that appears doomed to failure is irreconcilably attached to Mrs May herself. It is difficult to see how she can survive its rejection or the vote of no confidence that must surely follow. She has already lost three votes in the Commons, including a Labour one holding the Government in 'contempt' of Parliament - an almost unprecidented state of affairs - yet she remains defiant and indomitable. Will this play to her advantage or disadvantage with the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister if another election is called and how can that be made to fit with the Article 50 timetable? As I said 'mess' and 'pottage' are the operative words for this shambles. How the full legal advice plays on the decision making awaits to be seen but it confirms the omens are not good for the draft deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4kQ0OCojRQ