The Prime Minister
is showing very obvious signs of increasing desperation in her demands that we
all believe and ‘get behind’ her lies and obfuscation in order to make
ourselves worse off. It’s hardly
surprising; even the thought of trying to do that is enough to make anyone
desperate. But how desperate does someone
have to be to believe that Michael Gove is some sort of ‘secret
weapon’? She can’t even be entirely
certain that he knows which side he’s supposed to be on, given his clear
reservations about her dodgy deal, and his proven tendency towards backstabbing in relation to those who seek his support. Still, it’s perhaps not quite as desperate as the idea that the solution
to the problem is to bring back the
man who caused it in the first place.
Now that really would be a silly thing to do - so it will probably
become official policy shortly.
Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Monday, 26 November 2018
Building the lie
Tweet
There is a key
similarity between Trump and May – they are both inveterate liars. Towards the end of this
piece by Ian Dunt on politics.co.uk, he brutally and surgically lists a
series of lies which she has spun on Brexit ever since taking office. Another similarity is that the lies they tell are so
obvious and blatant, so easy to expose.
And a third is that they both expect us to believe them simply because
of the positions that they hold. There is
a key difference as well, however. I don’t
know whether Trump actually believes what he’s saying to be true (can he really
be that stupid?), but he gives a pretty good impression of believing it. Our poor old Prime Minister never looks like
she believes a single word of what she is saying but carries on because she can
see no alternative that doesn’t bring everything crashing down around her.
Her latest missive is another
example. It is riddled with lies and
half-truths, as has been pointed out elsewhere. It’s hard to find a sentence in the entire
letter which meets the standard of being the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. Yet some will still
believe it. She is still repeating the
nonsense that the extra money for the health service is coming from the
payments we would otherwise be making to Brussels for example.
There are perhaps
three factors in which people can be persuaded to believe the opposite of the
truth. The first is that the lie is
convincingly told, but she has failed miserably on that score. The second is that the lie agrees with what
people want to believe. For those who
believe that Brexit will bring nothing but benefit and that anyone who says
anything to the contrary is just refusing to accept the result and engaging in Project
Fear, then of course there’s a Brexit dividend.
The third is to start with a small truth; some of the biggest lies of
all can be built on just one or two small truths.
In the case of
the boost for the NHS, there are two small truths which are indisputable. The first is that spending on the NHS is
going to increase and the second is that we will no longer be making payments
to the EU budget. The lie is in linking
the two, because it assumes both that the act of Brexit will in no way reduce
government revenues and that nothing which is currently being paid for out of
our EU contributions needs to be paid for by another means. I mean, it’s not as if farmers really need payments,
is it, to select just one example? In the
simplistic terms in which some people see the world, if the money in a
particular line of the budget is not going to be spent on the EU, then it is ‘obviously’
available for other uses. Obviously.
To use a simple
analogy, a family could one day decide to stop using a particular supermarket
for all its groceries. All the money
which they currently spend there is then available for other things – perhaps erecting
a tall fence around the garden to keep out the neighbours. The flaw is obvious to most of us – the family
still needs groceries. It’s less obvious
to Brexiteers though, because they can simply demand that the supermarket
continues to provide the groceries without being paid – and even threaten not
to pay the bill for last months’ supplies unless they agree, on the basis that
they’d be getting nothing extra in return for the payment. The supermarket would probably respond that
its business model doesn’t quite work that way: ‘you’re a valued customer, but
no payment = no groceries’. That,
according to the Brexiteer would be just a negotiating tactic, because ‘they
need us more than we need them’, and in any event, if they haven’t gone to the supermarket
by one minute before closing time, the supermarket will be begging them to go
and collect their free groceries. How
else will they get the Prosecco
off their shelves? They might even try
telling the supermarket that the household held a vote and agreed that it
should receive free groceries so free groceries must be provided. The family has spoken; the will of the family
is clear.
A household
trying this approach would probably end up starving, but at least they’d be
doing so behind a good strong fence. And
they might even have blue passes to get in and out.
Friday, 23 November 2018
'Knowing' what we think
Tweet
Conservative
Minister, Rory Stewart, was rightly ridiculed last week for inventing a wholly
bogus claim
that “80 per cent of the Brexit public
support this deal”. But he isn’t the
only one who makes it up as he goes along.
Within the last few days, we’ve had David Davis talking
about “the Canada style free trade
arrangement that almost everybody wants for the UK”, and the boss herself saying that the public just want the process to be "settled" and see the UK leave the EU on 29
March 2019. Both of these seem to be
just as evidence-free as the remark for which Stewart was roundly criticised – Davis’
‘almost everybody’ sounds like rather more than 80% to me, and ‘the public’
sounds a lot like a claim that everyone is included in the remark. Perhaps Stewart’s mistake was actually putting
a figure on it; the moral seems to be that they can get away with even more
outrageous claims if they avoid making them sound quite so precise. But here’s the thing – if they all ‘know’
with such certainty what the public thinks, why are they so afraid of proving
it?
Thursday, 22 November 2018
Returning to default mode
Tweet
One of the
characteristics of Labour’s leadership contest in Wales is that, in an attempt
to differentiate between themselves, the candidates have all been busy coming
up with proposed new policies. It’s a
bit presidential in style, implying that policy is decided by the leader rather
than by the party, and the differences aren’t all that enormous. And in general, they seem to be tinkering at
the edges of what the Assembly might or might not be able to do. Still, many of the policies seem worthwhile
enough.
It does, though,
raise some questions in my own mind. If
they’re so full of interesting ideas for things that they could be doing, and
given that Labour has been in power continuously for the whole of the Assembly’s
near 20-year existence, why aren’t they already doing these things? Why does it take the resignation of a leader
before they even start to come up with their proposals?
Labour’s ‘policy’
at Assembly elections to date has boiled down to two main items:
a) We’re not the Tories, and
b) Voting for anyone else will let the
Tories in.
Sadly, whoever
wins the leadership race, I suspect that the discussion of alternative policies
will cease, and they’ll return to their default mode of depending simply on a
slowly disappearing hatred of the Tories in the population at large.
Tuesday, 20 November 2018
How to lose friends
Tweet
Not for the first
time, I found myself wondering yesterday whether the Prime Minister’s problem
is the poor judgement of her advisors, or whether she simply ignores what they
say. Her comments
about people from other EU countries ‘jumping the queue’ might have looked to her
or her advisors like a nice sound bite, but from the perspective of people who
have chosen to make their homes here and contribute to the UK’s economy and
society, it was downright offensive, as these two
reactions
indicate. It was a stupid and
unnecessary comment to make, but perhaps it simply reveals, yet again, the
casual, almost unthinking, sense of superiority which Anglo-British
nationalists feel towards everyone else.
It’s also just plain wrong – there is no ‘queue’ to come to the UK.
It’s an obvious
attempt to return to the anti-immigration theme which she has used before, but I
doubt she’s really thought that through either.
Does she really believe that those people who voted for Brexit primarily
because they thought it would halt immigration are going to jump for joy at the
thought of encouraging more immigrants from India instead of Europe? If she does believe that, then she’s not
understood the true nature of the hostility which some people feel towards
immigrants. It’s a dangerous and
unpleasant hostility which she should be trying to counter, not stoke up in an
attempt to sell the removal of rights from UK citizens as being about
controlling citizens from elsewhere.
Monday, 19 November 2018
The meaning of words
Tweet
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to
mean—neither more nor less.” That
seems to make Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty something of a role model for the
average Tory politician these days. When
Gove, Leadsom et al proclaim their loyalty to the Prime Minister, what they
mean is that they will do everything in their power to undermine the agreement
which she has reached with the EU. Only
a badly-weakened Prime Minister would tolerate that sort of ‘loyalty’ and ‘support’
within her own cabinet; effectively, the ‘gang of five’ have
become unsackable, in the short term at least.
There is
something very surreal about a Prime Minister trying so hard to sell a deal
which her cabinet has ‘agreed’ (another word whose meaning is somewhat flexible)
which a group of people who were party to the ‘agreement’ are busy rubbishing,
and which all involved know full well stands no chance of getting through the
House of Commons, even if she’s still around to promote it. In parallel with all this is the attempt by
some Tory MPs to unseat her by persuading enough of her own MPs to demand a
vote of no confidence. What better at a
critical juncture than to put everything on hold for a few weeks whilst they
hold an internal party election to determine who gets the ‘opportunity’ to make
an even bigger hash of things?
It was only a few
weeks ago that her internal critics were regularly telling the media that they
already had over 40 letters delivered and just needed a few more, but we seem
to have had at least 20 more in the last few days without ever getting to the
magic number. This probably simply means
that Tory MPs have been lying to each other for months about whether they have
or have not submitted their letters and/or subsequently withdrawn them. But then there’s no reason why lies and
duplicity should be restricted to those of cabinet rank. Who knows what Humpty Dumpty might have meant
if he said he’d submitted a letter?
At the heart of
all this dissension lies the great fantasy.
Gove, Raab, Johnson, (yes, and Corbyn too) – a parcel of rogues if ever
there were one – all essentially claim that if only they were doing the
negotiating, the EU would immediately cave in and give them more of the benefits
of membership with fewer of the obligations.
Even Humpty Dumpty might have struggled to make sense of that one.
Labels:
Boris Johnson,
Brexit,
Corbyn,
Gove,
Leadsom,
Raab,
Theresa May
Wednesday, 14 November 2018
Hanging together
Tweet
There are, and
always have been, only three possible states in which the UK could find itself
in relation to the EU, and in two years, the Prime Minister has argued that
each, in turn, is the ‘best’ outcome for the UK whilst at the same time
demanding that we accept that she has maintained an entirely consistent
position. The three are: full membership,
with all the benefits and obligations that entails, some sort of associate
membership which gives some of the benefits in return for some of the
obligations, and third-party status which gives none of the benefits in return
for meeting none of the obligations.
Prior to the referendum,
the Prime Minister was ‘quite clear’ that membership was far and away the best
option; since the referendum, she has repeated many times that no deal was
better than a bad deal where we didn’t get to choose which benefits and obligations
we have, and yesterday her position became one of saying that a bad deal, even
a very bad deal, is better than no deal at all.
She has been ‘quite clear’ about each position in turn, although the
words ‘quite clear’ when uttered by Theresa May don’t have the same meaning as
when uttered by the rest of us, usually meaning that she does not, in fact,
have a clue.
The surprising thing
in the last 24 hours is that the cabinet is still hanging together, although
that might be just because of their fear that if they don’t, they will, in the
words of Benjamin Franklin, assuredly hang separately. Things might change, of course; but at
present it looks extremely unlikely that the deal being presented to the
cabinet today will get through parliament even if they keep hanging together in
support of it. Having worked her way
through supporting all three of the potential options as the ‘best’ for the UK,
where can the Prime Minister turn next?
Tuesday, 13 November 2018
It's not the end game yet
Tweet
Putting on the
strongest and stablest face she can muster, whilst at the same time looking
sufficiently serious and determined, the Prime Minister has told us we’re now
entering the end game of the Brexit talks with the rest of the EU. The detail of what she is about to agree with
Brussels seems not to have been fully shared with the rest of the Cabinet so
far, let alone the rest of us, but one ex-member
of the Cabinet has already declared that what she is going to propose amounts
to ‘total surrender’. I assume that he
means surrender to ‘Brussels’ rather than the truth, which is that it is, at
last, a surrender to reality. The
situation today is, in effect, no different to that which existed when Article
50 was triggered – the promise of the ‘exact same benefits’ without the
obligations of membership is simply not on the table and could never have been.
If a deal is done
at all, it will inevitably mean tying the UK into the EU’s rules for longer and
more completely than the Prime Minister has admitted to date, despite her
continuing denials. Finding a way out of
the situation into which her own red lines have painted her will be neither quick
nor easy, even if she manages to get her ministers and parliament to sign up to
it. If this is indeed the end game, it
is such only for the Prime Minister herself.
In relation to Brexit, the words of one of her own predecessors come to
mind – it’s not so much the beginning of the end as the end of the beginning. If Brexit itself isn’t halted, then it is
going to remain more of a process than an event, probably taking at least a
decade before it finally happens. And
that’s a truth which neither the government nor the main opposition party is
yet willing to face.
Monday, 12 November 2018
Sinking ships
Tweet
Apparently, the
idea that rats can sense when a house is about to fall down, or a ship about to
sink, and therefore get out before the disaster, goes
back at least four centuries. I don’t
know whether rodents can really sense a forthcoming disaster or not; anecdotal
evidence isn’t the same thing as scientific proof. What we do know is that, in the earliest days
of the use of the analogy, the context was very often political.
And that brings
me to today’s report from
the BBC that the now infamous agreement made by the Cabinet in Chequers in July
may have been stretching the meaning of the word ‘agreement’ rather further
than was thought at the time. Perhaps
they weren’t all as convinced then as they are now that this particular ship is
doomed, but the fact that they are now leaking their concerns is evidence that many
of them are pretty well-convinced by now and are retrospectively making it
clear that this was never their idea of a good plan.
The only
surprising thing is that so many of them are still on board at all. It's not the behaviour that the adage would suggest that we should expect.
Friday, 9 November 2018
We're having the farce first
Tweet
It was Marx
(Karl, not Groucho, although in this case it could equally have been either)
who said
that history always repeats itself twice; the first time as tragedy and the
second as farce. It seems increasingly
as though the UK Government has taken this on board in relation to Brexit but
decided to reverse the order, by doing the farce first and the tragedy later. Two years into the process, we have one of
the key ministers in the whole process admitting that he hadn’t
really understood the significance of the UK’s most important trading route,
whilst the Prime Minister seems to have convinced herself that the only way she
can get her own cabinet to agree with her plans is to demand that they vote on
them without seeing the advice
underpinning them.
The underlying
problem remains, as the Guardian
put it, that the Prime Minister “has
never had the courage to choose between irreconcilable propositions”,
preferring to pretend that there is no inconsistency between the two in a
doomed attempt to unite her party around a form of words which can only be
meaningless in the final analysis. The latest
example is the idea that it perfectly possible to agree a deal which guarantees
that there will ‘never’ be a hard border across Ireland, but which also gives
the UK an inalienable right to withdraw, selectively, from that part of the
deal any time it chooses.
It’s true, of
course, that a country can withdraw from any multinational deal at any point –
Trump has demonstrated that in spades. But
I’m sure that the EU27 realise by now that they are dealing with a negotiating
partner who they cannot and should not trust
for a moment, which is why they will insist on a form of words which enables
them to enforce the whole of any agreement reached. What no country can do is to decide which
parts of a legally-binding treaty it will honour and which it will not – and at
the same time demand that any or every other party to the agreement continues
to honour all their obligations.
The farce part
seems destined to continue for some time yet, leaving the rest of the world
looking on at the UK’s foolishness
with amazement. But whilst it’s OK for
us all to laugh at the daily farce emerging from Downing Street, we need to
remember that unless we end it while we can the tragedy is still to come.
Wednesday, 7 November 2018
Time to smash the delusions
Tweet
Yesterday’s news
that a German company is closing its factory in Llanelli, citing Brexit
uncertainty as a factor, *should* make people locally think about whether
Brexit is such a good idea after all. I
doubt that it will, though. We all see
events through the prism of our own priors, and for those who think that
multinational companies are trying to bully them into changing their minds, the
news will merely reinforce that belief.
There have been plenty already willing to say that the company is hiding
behind Brexit as a soft excuse for something it would probably have done
anyway. And they might even be at least
partly right to believe that; although Brexit was cited as ‘a factor’, it was
almost certainly not the only one. Being
the last straw isn’t the same as being the initial or prime cause.
But this business
of seeing things through the perspective of our own beliefs goes much wider
than that. Writing in the Irish
Times yesterday, Robert Shrimsley said that Brexit is ‘teaching Britain its
true place in the world’. I really wish
that were true, but as any teacher will know and understand, there are two sides
to education. Delivering the lesson is
one part; understanding and learning from it is something completely
different. And often the lesson learned
isn’t the same one as was being taught. As
far as much of the UK is concerned, it seems that when the rest of the world
tries to show the UK what it’s real place in the world is, the response is not
understanding and enlightenment, but resentment and rejection of both the
message and the messenger. For
Anglo-British not-nationalists-at-all who ‘know’, with absolute certainty, that
the UK is superior to everyone else and entitled to behave accordingly, the
message received isn’t the same as the one sent.
Also in yesterday’s
Irish Time, Fintan
O’Toole suggested that the Prime Minister should be allowed to present what
is likely to be a humiliating climb-down as a great victory, because saving
face is something that the rest of the UK can afford to grant the UK. Logic says that he has a point; but there’s
more to all this than mere logic, which is why I choose to disagree. Getting the UK to understand its true status
in the world is about the only good thing that might yet come out of Brexit,
despite my growing pessimism about even that.
Letting the UK Government off the hook by allowing them to pretend that
they’ve won a great victory over those horrid Europeans seems to me a means of
perpetuating the illusions which they harbour.
Those illusions really need to be shattered, once and for all. And it seems to me that it has to be done the hard way - the rest of the world needs to be prepared to be cruel in the short term in order to be kind in the long term.
Monday, 5 November 2018
Choosing a century
Tweet
Underlying the
whole Brexit process from the outset has been a current of Anglo-British
not-nationalism-at-all which starts from a perspective of general arrogance
towards the rest of the world underpinned by a sense of superiority and
entitlement. It’s a strong form of a
toxic mixture which would be called nationalism anywhere else, but these
particular not-nationalists are so special and unique that they alone are, in
their view at least, entitled to deny the application of that word to themselves. It hasn’t made for a smooth process of
negotiation, yet still they persist.
We saw it at the
outset with statements about ‘the easiest deal in history’; ‘they need us more
than we need them’, and so on. It’s a
perspective from which the EU’s determination to treat the UK as it has asked
to be treated – as a ‘third country’ – is interpreted as some sort of
punishment or revenge. It’s a point
which has been well debunked many times – here’s
a good summary – but every attempt to explain that it's what the electorate voted for simply leads to even louder
howls of protest from those who continue to argue that the UK has a right to be
treated differently.
Most recently,
we’ve seen it in relation to the suggestion put
forward by Nick Boles that the UK could ‘temporarily’ join EFTA and thus enjoy
many of the benefits of continued membership whilst negotiating an alternative
longer term relationship. In fairness,
there’s a certain logic to the idea – from a UK perspective. It’s not without its problems, though, not
least because it doesn’t resolve the problem of the British border across
Ireland, and nor does it satisfy the extreme Brexiteers.
But there’s
another problem with it too – such logic as it does possess might be obvious
from a UK perspective, but what about the other countries involved? Expecting the existing EFTA members to simply
change their structures and procedures to accommodate a new member whose GDP is
larger than that of any existing member, and to do so on the basis of an
expected membership period of just a few years, is another display of that
famous non-nationalistic sense of entitlement and arrogance. Their compliance with the requirements of a
UK government which still hasn’t worked out what it’s trying to achieve as an
end point is taken as a given – just like it was taken as a given that German
carmakers and Italian prosecco producers would force their governments to give
way so that they could continue to trade with the UK.
From the outset, the
UK has apparently managed to misunderstand and misinterpret almost everything
that the EU27 has said; assuming instead that the EU27 will ultimately come to see
everything as the UK Government does (i.e. in simplistic terms of economic
transactions) and blithely ignoring the clear and repeated messages that, for
the EU27, ‘Europe’ has always been about much more than trade. As we approach the end game, nothing in the
UK’s attitude seems to be changing; the government still doesn’t really know
what it wants in the long term and is still assuming that the EU will give way. They simply can’t escape from that inherent
sense of superiority and entitlement.
Despite the reports of a ‘secret’ deal about to be agreed, such details
as have been leaked so far seem to suggest that it’s little more than another
exercise in kicking the can down the road whilst the UK – and more particularly
the Tory Party – continues to argue with itself. The problem is that that argument is still
about how to achieve a result which recognises that superiority and entitlement. It’s an argument doomed to continue
indefinitely until the political culture of the UK is able to mature enough to
accept that the UK’s place in the world isn’t what they want or believe it to be, and that
the world isn’t going to accept the UK on the UK’s terms. I keep hoping that the whole Brexit shambles
will have the one positive effect of dragging these non-nationalists into the
twenty-first century – it certainly ought to.
So far, it seems to be having the exact opposite effect – they’re retreating
into the eighteenth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)