The European Union Carried on by Other Means
Mrs May is a product of the past and it shows in her poor political leadership and shambolic Article 50 negotiations leading towards Brexit in name only. This is a past based on increasing political deference to the European Union (EU) and dependency started by Edward Heath and continued by other Conservative and Labour prime ministers up to the present. This evolved in time into a paradigm (or conceptual framework of ideas, assumptions and perceived wisdom) which set the direction for many subsequent policies and actions. The only notable exception to this past paradigm is (perhaps) Mrs Thatcher who claimed to be inspired by free-market economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, yet still remained largely obsequious to the EU’s centralising control freaks and arrogant ideologues.
Escape from (conservative) Reality into the EU
At the heart of any notionally conservative party is a major dilemma for its strategists and leaders, how to expand its popular base beyond the core support of the conservative-minded; who make up the majority of party members. This is in effect developing a second unique selling proposition rather than making traditional conservatism popular to the many. It arises from a belief that they need to also project an image, though not necessarily a reality, of eclectic, inclusive modernity. At one time the EU appeared to provide this modernity. It could, therefore, be accepted for political expediency even when contradictions with core values or British national interests were obvious.
The EU comfort zone for Politicians and Public Servants
For any prime minister, not just Conservative, and the Civil Service, the EU provides a useful comfort zone. There is the appearance of eclectic modernity, a ‘world stage’ to strut, a means of escaping responsibility, and the respectful acceptance by equals and their subordinates. Simple, just follow the EU’s (mainly greater German) social, political, economic, regulatory, monetary and fiscal lead. Who wouldn’t find this reassuring especially as an escape from political turbulence, the need to be competent and for the avoidance of blame should any major mistakes become public?
The EU’s corrupting comfort zone
The uninviting (and courageous) alternative to the EU’s comfort zone for any PM is to be accused by opponents of being insular, parochial, jingoistic, elitist, ‘out in the cold’ or ‘out of step’ with the EU and ‘behind the times’. Small wonder Edward Heath and subsequent leaders became such EU-centric ‘modernity’ idealists and were prepared to deceive the public whilst selling out British national interests and sovereignty. Mrs May would need to be very determined to escape the strong force of this ingrained political behaviour and long line of politicians.
The EU undermines UK Governmental competence
As activities of government were transferred to the EU over the last forty odd years there has been a hollowing out of competence, though not necessarily of numbers in the Civil Service. The result is that in many fields, the expertise and motivation required by the government of a sovereign country no longer exist within the UK. As a newly independent country, it will take time to re-establish missing expertise and then achieve positive results in our national interest.
The Referendum Vote for Brexit caused a paradigm shift
Times have changed. The majority voting in the Referendum have decided the EU is not the future that they want. This is a major paradigm shift with wide-ranging long-term implications. The EU is now the past and modernity is to embrace exciting future possibilities outside its claustrophobic clutches. The new modernity has not yet solidified into a paradigm and can potentially include anything from re-invigorating democracy with a more collaborative form of government to re-discovering world-leading skills based on long-standing national strengths, heritage and culture; there are many – see The National CV.
Mrs May is failing to adapt to the new Brexit inspired modernity
Mrs May is having considerable difficulty elucidating a new post Brexit vision to accord with the Referendum’s paradigm shift and resulting new modernity. She is stuck in the obsolete paradigm. Dependence and deference to the EU is so ingrained that Mrs May can’t let go of the past and the old EU-centric view of modernity. There is little or no evidence of her using Brexit as a great facilitator for tackling the big issues facing our country. Hers is the spin, language, actions, and policies of the past.
Talk of ‘A deep and special relationship with our European partners’ is more a cry for continued belonging than a confident assertion of independence. Worse, the EU is allowed to make the running with Mrs May, Mr Davis and the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union eventually caving into its increasingly unreasonable demands. Worse still, the current cave-ins (for after Brexit) include an appalling Transition Deal making this country into a temporary then a permanent EU vassal state. Then, to highlight a few, there are surrendering UK fisheries, defence and defence procurement to EU bureaucrats and British citizens to the worst justice systems in the EU through retaining the European Arrest Warrant.
The EEA/EFTA Paradox
Whilst obviously being unwilling to leave control by the political EU, Mrs May somewhat enigmatically chose to leave the existing frictionless trading simplicity of membership of the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA). She has never explained why this reckless decision was made without a practical plan for leaving the EU, whilst still retaining near frictionless trade.
However, gullibility and ignorance are hinted at in her Lancaster House speech 17th January 2017 where she appears to have accepted the disingenuous claims of the EU leaders regarding the inviolate nature of the four freedoms. In reality, the EU is happy to break these principles when it suits it. For example, the EU’s proposed Withdrawal Agreement, Article 13 (Protocols NI) allows the EU or the UK, amongst other things, unilaterally to restrict immigration from the other party (to the agreement). In other words, the EU can restrict immigration into the remaining Member States from the UK, and the UK can restrict immigration from the remaining Member States into the UK.
Nowhere to hide
Spin and handing over more and more political decisions to the EU no longer cut it post Referendum. Endless vacuous mantras and blaming the EU for failing to deliver a successful, opportunity-filled, Brexit is increasingly unconvincing outside the Westminster bubble. With time running out the country needs to know the truth. Mrs May probably already knows what she must do to save Brexit from being in name only and trade with the EU from severe disruption. The only viable option is to re-join the free nations in The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and use this as part of escaping the EU whilst temporarily remaining in the EEA under much more flexible and favourable conditions in a bespoke version of the EEA Agreement. (further information see The EFTA/EEA Solution to the Current Brexit Impasse, Brexit Reset, Eureferendum.com, various posts on Campaign for an Independent Britain and affiliates)
Getting onto this escape route (from the EU with the least potential disruption to existing trade) in the coming crisis will need effective crisis management and something like a modern-day Brexit Operation Dynamo. Will Mrs May deliver or should the Conservative Party expeditiously choose someone else who can?
When it comes to the way our Government deals with the Brexit “negotiations”, as well as the reactions of the Remainers, I’m always reminded of a book I was given last Christmas by a colleague at work, called “Who Moved My Cheese?” by Dr Spencer Johnson.
It’s a short story, which is famous amongst motivational business speakers. I’m not going to reveal too much about the story and the meaning behind it, but the basic gist is about how different people adapt to changes.
It can be purchased from Amazon and other well-known book stores, but I did find a PDF download, which I would say is well worth a read, because it can apply to so many different situations in one’s personal life, one’s business life, or even in the life of a Brexit “negotiator” or “Remainer”.
PDF download: http://jef.mentalis.org/hersenspinsels/downloads/WhoMovedMyCheese_DrSpencerJohnson.pdf
Dot-joining Guidance:
The EU continues to offer grace-and-favour jobs to compliant members of the UK Parliament and establishment.
The most sinister move is this. The EU has approached some older Con MPs in marginal constituencies, offering them incredibly well-paid sinecures if they retire citing ill-health, thereby triggering by-elections which might let Labour in.
And since if the greybeard loon wasn’t there, there is no question at all that Labour would go 100% REMAIN, if I were him I’d take great care when crossing Upper Street.
If one thinks the EU is incapable of such criminality, one must not have researched the antecedents of many of its stalwarts. Of course there would be a long chain of intermediaries each having very limited understanding of what the Operation was about.
The fantastic opportunities of Brexit are being side-lined or ignored by Tory Brexiteers. This is because they are scared of the MSM, LibLabCon reaction to their ideas. For many remainers it would provide a huge opportunity to smear and criticise. The backlash could be in the short term very damaging to Brexit and re-invigorate the remain argument. It is a great shame that this threat is stopping the necessary rational debate for the future of “global Britain”. On the other hand it’s exactly the tactic used by those who took us into the EEC in the first place. Best to be economical with the truth.
If the the EFTA/EEA solution was the right one then why would leading Brexiteers not be embraced this route? They may well know, and as I deeply suspect, that this route would be seen by uber Remainers as a waiting room to be back in the EU within a decade.
We must strive to turn around the mindset of the political class and civil servants that their career interests and personal prosperity are best served by driving forward for a clean Brexit and that not giving 100% to a clean Brexit is career suicide.
You are right but this will not happen with not just a Vichy but a full-blown Quisling government ensconced in the Palace of Westminster and Whitehall.
We didn’t vote for EFTA/EEA; we voted for out with no conditions specified. Any ongoing association with the EU, aside from the normal trade we have with other countries, is not acceptable. Remember that we are dealing with Europhile Politicians who will use any excuse to continue the acceptance of rules from Brussels.
May needs to stop obstructing the process and just get on with that which we voted for. In any case the EU is on its way to being a dead duck. We don’t want to pick up any of the costs of dealing with the carcase or attempts to resuscitate it.
Jack – Yes, Theresa May is not inept she is a nasty piece of work. Theresa May is not negotiating with the EU, she is collaborating.
In the end, collaborators are put before firing squads, aren’t they? Quisling was.
Baroness May one day? No way! And Britain must not have to pay the price for her barrenness.
That’s below the belt, Freddy. I don’t mind criticism of the politics of our Prime Minister in any shape or form but to have a go at her simply because she hasn’t got any children is not acceptable to me.
??
Her barrenness of ideas and of intellect – not to mention morals, integrity, honour, honesty (“net migration down to tens of thousands”), etc.
Why should she not be held accountable for that, pray?
Unless you meant the other thing. In which case, shame on you, Debbie! And, since -you- then brought it up, let’s look at current EU leaders as they plot for population replacement:
Germany** — Angela Merkel — No kids
France** — Emmanuel Macron — No kids
Italy** — Paolo Gentiloni — No kids
Netherlands** — Mark Rutte — No kids
Luxembourg** — Xavier Bettel — No kids
Belgium** (viewed as the EU base) — Jean-Claude Juncker — No kids
United Kingdom* — Theresa May — No kids
Scotland* — Nicola Sturgeon — No kids
Sweden — Stefan Lofven — No kids
** = All six founder (1957) members of what was destined to mutate into the EU
* = 80% of the first tranche (1973) joiners
Across the EU’s nations, I estimate that at least 90% of fully mature adults have at least one biological child. So if it was all fluke, and nothing influenced anything else, then the probability (taking only the founding countries) of all six currently having childless leaders is (1-0.9)^6
That is 0.0001%.
Must be coincidental…
Don’t you shame me, Freddy! Perhaps you did mean barrenness of honesty, honour, etc, but Andrea Leadsom brought the subject up during the battle for the Conservative leadership and many of us of the opposite gender will read ‘barrenness’ as referring to children. I suggest you choose your words more carefully.
Your research into other EU leaders is interesting although I don’t know what should be read into it. It might just be coincidental, or it could be that if one wants to be a professional politician, one simply doesn’t have time for children, although the New Zealand Prime Minister seems to have managed.
Aha. I really must try to keep up more, Debbie. ;^)
Ever since we tracked (via ConstantContact) the opening/downloading of Gerard’s then magnum opus, the ‘EU Referendum FAQ’ (40Q&A version, in whose writing I collaborated, and whose online distribution and publishing I managed, I have known that someone in Theresa May’s office (just maybe May, at that time Home Sec’y, herself) was repeatedly referring to the FAQ!
Hopefully, her (or her office’s) old habits die hard, and she/they continue to track.
With mutual warm regards, I’m sure.
🙂
Don’t you grin at me, Debbie, or I’ll report you to the Duty Editor so fast your head will spin!
😉
What is the attitude of childless leaders of countries towards the general necessity for people to have children in order for that people to continue to exist? I suspect that in the West it’s informed by a culture which no longer believes in itself.
I read barrenness as referring to the committment or lack of, in complying with the will of the people.
;^)
I read Barrenness as an insult to those who for some reason don’t have children. It’s the first thing that comes to mind and that’s the way most people will read it. It will be about as acceptable as Mr Bloom’s reference to ‘slags’.
I remember the days when people used to seem to think that having a large family was a qualification for parliamentary membership. In my opinion there was no difference in the quality or lack of between the breeders an non-breeders. You may as well check people’s zodiac sign.
Thank you Farrenger. Glad I’m not the only one to have read it this way.
I do have to correct myself though, Mr Bloom referred to some women as “sluts” not “slags” as I said above. I remember he claimed he was speaking Yorkshire, which may be true, as the word could be a derivation of the word slattern meaning ‘untidy woman’.
However, the point remains.
I’m with you Debbie.
Thanks Farranger.
On the subject of Godfrey Bloom, you’ll remember the contretemps he had with Michael Crick when Crick suggested that not having a black face on the front of the UKIP manifesto was racist.
I always thought that Crick had it the wrong way round. To have selected someone for the front of the manifesto PURELY ON THE COLOUR OF HIS SKIN would have been undoubtedly racist.
What do you think?
I think Bloom was right and Crick deserved what he got.
If Godfrey had actually read the “offending” booklet, facetiously accused by Crick of not having a black face on the cover, he could have opened it at page 6 and shown Crick a photograph of the brown face of “UKIP member Kane Khan”, thanked for having sponsored the publication. This would have made Crick’s accusation of “UKIP racism” collapse much more effectively than using it to biff Crick over the head…
Torquil, Crick too didn’t look at the “offending” (sic) booklet.
And Crick has form.
At the GE2015 Manifesto (an excellent document, and unlike that of other parties, fully costed) launch, right in front of me Crick interviewed one of our MEPs (to save him embarrassment, I won’t name him) and said to him that the manifesto was costed on the basis of the UK leaving the EU but did not cater for the eventuality that we didn’t. So it was unfit for purpose.
To my horror, the MEP made an unintelligible reply which lasted about two minutes. Crick looked increasingly puzzled at it and had started shaking his head.
I then provided Crick with the correct answer:
A manifesto is a set of pledges as to what a party will do if it gets into power. If UKIP gets into power, we would repeal ECA1973 and thus leave the EU immediately. Therefore Crick’s question was absurd.
Outcome: Of course he didn’t use any of the footage.
English is a rich and wonderful language, and I’m assured by linguists the most flexible and precise the world has ever known. For the last 50 years, lefty loony teachers have done their utmost to undermine and debase it.
The richness affords you the ability to interpret “barrenness” as you choose, and permits me to differ with your interpretation.
You’re right Jack. The right wing of just about every country in the EU is growing and very soon there’ll be a terrible backlash and the whole EU edifice will come tumbling down. Even in France there’s criticism of the bloc. It’s not going to last much longer, but I quite agree that we don’t want to be involved in sorting everything out afterwards. Call us rats but I’d rather leave the sinking ship before it heads to Davy Jones’ locker.
Your analogy of a sinking ship leaves out the terrifying, deadly events that will precede it.
History tells us as such unhappy unions come to a close, wars break out. Have human nature and human structures changed that much to change that?
That’s like a fire and a pitched battle on a ship – which will sink, but not before some really nasty stuff occurs. All the more reason we get our lifeboats as far away as possible.
Frau Merkel explores the barrenness of her soul when she pushes for the formation of an EU Army to be brought forward. She knows for what it will be deployed. As does its traditional enemy which has been bought for with bribes to its farmers and other German largesse.
Couldn’t have put it better myself!
Oops, I used the word “barrenness”. The word isn’t halal here.
flyer, surely you would have been more prudent. It is liable to produce innuendo of bad taste or judgement or general “cluck-clucking” here. ;–)
I am expected to accept that a situation that, on the face of it **, has a probability of around
0.0001%
and arguably less is actually a fluke.
I should be the one tut-tutting; just as well I am such an easy-going bloke.
** It isn’t quite that clear. Perhaps the childless have more time for politics or those devoting themselves to politics make a conscious decision not to propagate.
“Costs of dealing with carcase”: Estimated at over a trillion. (G Batten, EU Exit Plan para 13)
Mary,
Thank you for that; I will read it at my leisure.