(ollow The Money (And Ambitions)-

Follow The Money (And The Ambitions)

A clue was given to the Watergate reporters that eventually resolved the case. «Follow the money». I suspect (totally believe) the same may reveal the motivation of the hard Brexit proponents. Many leading proponents have already made money out of Brexit and also made sure that they and their interests remain in the EU. They stand to gain from a hard Brexit; too bad for the country.

Leave that aside for the moment. As both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have consistently refused to answer the question as to whether they think the UK would be better off in the EU we can easily conclude that it would be. So the UK is going to be worse off. Leave that aside too for the moment.

The EU is now reportedly going to make a determined effort to offer a deal to the UK (in the absence of anything sensible coming from the other side) , a deal being reported as possibly «exceptional». That would avoid a «no deal» Brexit damaging to both sides. If a proposal emerges, what are the chances of the UK accepting it?

Any proposed deal will split the Conservative party, with the hard-liners against it. I don't know what the numbers are but maybe 1/3-2/3. It will also most probably split the Labour party, depending on the exact terms. Continuation in the Customs Union, which would resolve the Ireland border problem (and thus a most likely item in the proposal), would be unacceptable (so he says) to Jeremy Corbyn, What then would be the split in the Labour party? Again, I have no numbers, even less in this case, but it could well be the converse of the split in the Conservative party, 2/3-1/3, or slightly more favourable to Corbyn.

So what happens if it comes to a vote in Parliament? I don't know more than anybody else. What I do know is that, if this test comes before Parliament, it will clearly show which MPs value limiting the damage of Brexit to their country above personal financial and political ambitions..

The Brexit Fiction

The Brexit Fiction

Politicians of both of the UK's main political parties are maintaining that Brexir must happen because they said that the result of the EU referendum would be definitive. That is indeed what they said, despite the fact that all the legislation around the referendum clearly stated that the result could be only advisory. Have you ever known politicians change their mind, their stance on an issue? Who hasn't? So why not change their minds on Brexit. They can't??????…...Empty phrases such as "the will of the people" are used by both sides to maintain this fiction, homage to Orwell. Yet the leaders of the main political parties remain clinging to this Brexit fiction despite overwhelming evidence that Brexit will significantly harm the UK, as indeed a large majority of those same politicians said before the referendum. So, the UK's political leaders are determined to harm the UK. Why?

In the case of Theresa May the situation is obvious: she is trying to hold together a political party that is split in two anyway and will quite surely sooner or later split asunder. She's looking for a temporary fix, as with the DUP alliance. Any withdrawal agreement with the EU will split her party asunder; a «no deal» Brexit will lose her party its traditional commercial and industrial support and possibly make it unelectable, given the consequences, for a generation. (That would of course depend on the opposition response). Anyway, she can't win; she's hanging on.

The case of Jeremy Corbyn is slightly more complex. Asked in a recent interview, six times, whether he thought the UK would be better off in the EU, he six times refused to answer the question. Conclusion? He knows the UK would be better off inside the EU but doesn't want that. So what does he want? No one seems to know but he is a Marxist dogmatist so presumably that has something to do with Marxist dogma. At the moment, he is in a position to potentially bury his political opposition for a generation (what political leader could ask for more?) but apparently doesn't want that. He wants to maintain the Brexit fiction.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us, I think, in a situation where the principal political leaders, for their own political reasons, want to ensure that the UK is damaged one way or another. Maintaining the Brexit fiction ensures this and suits both main political party leaders. But isn't democracy supposed to ensure the welfare of the majority of people; which apparently can't happen in this case. So whither democracy in the UK?

Brexit: Current Thoughts

Brexit: Resume Of Current Thoughts

I've been reluctntly coming to the conclusion that a «hard» Brexit has to be the most likely outcome unless…...……………..

I'll take you through the thinking process. Firstly, May can't agree anything by herself; the best she can do is come up with a proposal that she thinks will be acceptable to the EU. Secondly, Barnier can't agree anything by himself; the most he can do is get from May a proposal he thinks may be acceptable to the EU. What if that happens? If I understand the process correctly, the proposal has then to go to the EU Parliament and to each of the Parliaments of the 27 EU countries, each of which has an individual veto. The proposal could get through but I wonder what odds any bookmaker would give on it doing so. I doubt that the odds would be attractive.

How did we get into this situation and how can we get out of it? We got into it undoubtedly because two years of supposed negotiations have achieved nothing. I say «supposed» because I believe, although I can't prove it, that chief UK negotiator David Davis never had any intention of coming to any agreement; I believe (and again can't prove it) that he wanted and intended a «hard» Brexit.. He has been criticised in some of the media for laziness and lack of preparedness but I believe that was intentional on his part. With accusations of treason popular in the UK gutter press re opposition to Brexit, where does agreeing to undertake an assignment intending to defeat it come?Anyway, the result is that we have run out of time.

So what can be done to recover the situation? A «hard» Brexit would, by general consent, be catastrophic for the UK economy in the short to medium term but also noticeably damage the EU economy, so neither side really wants that. What could happen (a forlorn hope?) is that May goes to the EU, lays her cards on the table and says something like «we are in a mess and need more time to sort this; can we have more time?». What would the likely EU response be? I suspect the EU would take a hard line and say that the UK is either in or out in March next year and the UK has to decide on that. The UK would then be faced with two choices: face a «hard» Brexit and its consequences or vote to stay in the EU for the moment, (by no means certain to get UK Parliamentary approval) and face a probable second referendum.

An alternative, of course, is that some agreement is reached over the next 6 months that meets approval in the UK Parliament, the EU Parliament and the Parliaments of the 27 EU countries.

It's not a pretty picture but that is how I see it at the moment.