Archive

Posts Tagged ‘European Union’

Small decisions have BIG consequences: How the outcome of the Brexit process could resemble nothing anyone intended or anything that has already been seen

October 19, 2018 1 comment

small decisions

One of the biggest items of fake news reaching our screens and pages right now, is the idea, suggestion and misconception that Brexit must now come back to the People in another Referendum or ‘Peoples Vote’ to somehow make it legitimate or fair.

On 23rd June 2016, the majority of Voters taking part in the European Referendum, a genuine ‘Peoples Vote’ instructed the UK Government that our collective and democratic decision was to Leave Membership of the European Union (EU).

Contrary to repeated suggestions by many parts of the Remain camp and actions such as making challenges in the Courts and distorting the facts underlining both the Leave and Remain Campaigns and what has taken place since, the Vote was fair. The Leave result was genuine. And yes, 17.4 Million members of the Electorate of this Country did know what leaving the EU means.

However, an outcome is rarely an event in itself.

An outcome is usually the sum total of a chain of many different events or decisions leading to them, which can result in the outcome itself looking, feeling or being nothing like what the original decision directed. The result could resemble something far from what was was intended, and what it should have meant, simply because of decisions, influences and actions that enter the chain in between.

In normal life, this evolutionary process is often natural, influenced by many factors added on the way along, which are not intended on the part of anyone involved. They sit completely outside of our control and often lead to outcomes very different to what had been at any point planned or intended, but the result is overlooked, because the non-contrived and unforeseen parts of life have been introduced to the picture as we have travelled through.

Where things go wrong, particularly where big, political decisions are made, is that when a clear outcome from a process is defined, somebody or many somebodies either deliberately, or indeed unintentionally attempt and perhaps succeed in exerting influence on the process leading to that outcome.

They take action which ultimately leads things to a very different place from where they should have by that point have been, whether part of the legitimate plan, or whatever was their own. Different, because whatever the intention, once an action has been undertaken, the consequences in such circumstances are often completely out of anyones control.

Brexit is one such outcome. An outcome which is likely to look very different to what was intended when people Voted for it and equally very different to what those who have been trying to frustrate it have been intending ever since.

Whilst we obsess about the future and what we think will happen, we habitually base our predictions on the snapshot of now. We overlook the events which contributed or created the pathway which brought us to this point in time right now, which with different decisions and influences could have already looked very different indeed.

We also overlook what pandering to the noisy fears of idealistic people without vision or responsibility could deliver in terms of the final destination, if the real priorities of our EU departure are not kept in mind and the direction of travel kept patently clear.

Brexit, and the decision which demands its delivery in its genuine sense, wasn’t simply created on that night when the Votes of the EU Referendum were counted in June 2016.

But just as the UK Leaving the EU as the result of a Referendum wasn’t foreseen in the days of Thatcher, it doesn’t now mean that there is a trouble-free license to interfere with, redirect or invalidate the will of the British people when it comes to delivering the Brexit process, by manipulating the pathway to delivery at every opportunity in between.

Looking back on the events since the UK joined what was the Common Market, it is worth considering since the last days of the Thatcher Government, how each event and small decision surrounding Government has resulted in the cumulative outcome which is Brexit today.

The Brexit result did not come about by design although many Leavers would now leverage the benefit of hindsight to say ‘We told you so’.

Yes, there was every reason to believe that the UK would ultimately exit the European Union through some kind of fracture like an economic crash or the destruction of the Euro. But nobody either within the Leave contingent or the Remain-led Establishment itself really thought it would be a democratic plebiscite which would drive a wholly different, yet legitimate wedge between the UK and Membership of the EU.

The point to consider, whether your bias is Leave or Remain, is that no matter the nature or motivation of your intention, when you interfere with a process or take a course of action where you are attempting to dictate the outcome, you can neither predict nor control what the final result or outcome will actually be.

These words of caution are aimed at anyone who is, has or will attempt to manipulate the pathway or destination of Brexit.

Brexit is a genie that is completely out of its bottle and the result of all the bad choices, deliberate deceptions and meddling is going to take the UK to a destination which has not been anticipated, cannot be controlled and will never again resemble a place in the World where even recently we may have been.

The first real divide which resembled what we now know as Leave and Remain found its genesis at the time of the Thatcher Government.

The fractures came about because of the way that what we now know as the EU has been constructed, how it operates and how so little about its modus operandi is understood.

The pathway, often littered with wholly pro-EU acts on the part of Prime Ministers and their Cabinet Colleagues who should have known better, ultimately led to the Brexit Vote result. An outcome that was never the Establishment’s intention.

If you want to give thought to how Brexit could now play out as a result of the fractures and differences in ideas between people who should now be focusing on what we have in common, rather than the temporary ideas that we do not, this is probably the best place to begin.

The European Referendum Vote was the opening of the door and the outcome of a chain of many different events.

It wasn’t an instruction for MP’s or other people with Establishment influence to try and negotiate the steps that we take to get out.

The Result was a call to action. The Vote was a command. The outcome was a clear instruction that we Leave and only then review what remains between the UK and the EU. We the Electorate had no reason to doubt that it would be delivered in a way which would be fair, transparent and above all would be diligently true to that instruction.

Here follows a look at the Chain of events which led to the European Referendum result; to May’s tenure, and to a future which is far from certain.

Just as the events discussed and speculated upon before the EU Referendum led to the requirement of a Brexit outcome, the impact and consequences of the events and outcomes that have followed leave us today in the position that we cannot be sure of what will come to pass. That is before anything else is decided or done, and the choices which lead to those decisions and actions may be small, or they may appear to be large.

PLEASE NOTE: The following has been written as a way of provoking thought about events and outcomes that have happened compared to what could have been if different decisions had been made and subsequent actions taken. It is not a suggestion that any of the circumstances outlined would definitely have happened if different choices had actually been made. It also doesn’t consider the impact of the many other options which those involved had, or the events and outcomes that did and could have influenced any one or indeed all of the events as they appear in this inexhaustive list.

 1990

Margaret Thatcher ‘Regicide’ by the Conservative Party Europhiles

‘No, No, No’ seems like ancient history now. But many of us overlook the key event to the creation of the schism between Conservatives who at any other time would be friends.

Like all of our new, ambitious and confident Prime Ministers since, Margaret Thatcher underestimated the resolve and deviousness of the EU to achieve their long-term aim of a European Superstate through a drip-drip-drip strategy built on ‘no-return’ for each and every power transferred to the Brussels based autocratic centre.

When the point came for Mrs Thatcher, when she knew things had already gone too far, many of her closest Cabinet Members had already gone ‘Euro-native’. They were committed to this supranational, undemocratic ideal and were unwilling to support the Prime Minister in doing anything to turn things around.

The key players in bringing down the last real Tory PM, such as the still vocal Michael (now Lord) Heseltine, didn’t themselves gain the Conservative Party Leadership as part of this first of many disengaging and disenfranchising processes with the public.

Instead, under the typical Europhile appearance of compromise, the post was given to one of the biggest pro-Europe Conservatives we have ever seen.

What if different decisions had been made: It is easy to look back and assume that things would have been different if Maggie had stayed. She may well have given us the Referendum that her successor never did before the Maastricht Treaty was signed and in 1991 or 1992. She could have easily secured the solid working majority Commons that Major was not destined to do. But after 11 years of Leadership including 3 General Election Wins, a war in the Falklands and many battles with the EU and domestically back home, we can only wonder if she had the energy and clout left to take the Conservatives into another Term. As any eurosceptic who was around at the time would honestly tell you, the public at large were not at that point really awake to the creeping control and danger presented by the then version of the EU, and it’s impact had not arrived in ways that put the issue firmly in people’s minds.

John Major ‘Crowned’ PM

In what seemed like an unexpected choice to those watching on from a distance, the open warfare in the Conservative Party following Margaret Thatcher’s ejection from Office led to the Election of what appeared to be a compromise candidate – John Major.

Coming immediately from the post of Chancellor, Major had just overseen the entry of the UK into the EU’s Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), the precursor to the Single Currency or ‘Euro’.

What if different decisions had been made: Although a growing element of the Parliamentary Conservative Party was becoming increasingly suspicious of the direction of EU travel, few had the understanding that Thatcher had belatedly obtained. The appearance of a split in the philosophical framework of the Conservative Party made what was sold as compromise in the selection of a replacement for Margaret Thatcher all but inevitable. John Major had a track record at Cabinet level, what was at the time seen as being an essential qualification for the ‘top job’. Another Conservative Leader could have been Elected, but Thatcher was likely to have been the only Leader capable of taking on the EU at that time. She was not supported by the ‘big beasts’ to do so, so any new Leader who was in anyway Eurosceptic was going to have a very troubled time. 

1992

Maastricht Treaty

John Major’s ‘big moment’ was committing the UK to the Maastricht Treaty in early 1992.

What if different decisions had been made: The significance of Maastricht along the road to surrendering more and more power to the EU cannot be overstated. It is arguably true that this was a point when a Referendum on Membership should have been held.

We cannot be sure that a Vote at this point would have gone against remaining and therefore further committing to the EU or that the result would have instructed Major’s Government to Leave.

With three distinct groups present in the European Membership debate i.e. those who are blindly committed to the EU superstate, those who don’t care or aren’t really sure what any of it’s about and those who are against it, it is reasonably safe to argue that in 1992, the deck was still stacked to what we now know as ‘Remain’.

Members of the second group are always more likely to endorse the status quo, whatever direction that might be.

If Major had gone to the People, what question would he have asked? Was it even possible to ask a question which wouldn’t then have created a debate in which the ‘European Dream’ could not therefore last?

As it was, Major doubled down and used every trick in the politicians handbook to push greater commitment to the EU through, ironically outing the Euroscpetics as ‘Bastards’ for using the same methods that he was too.

General Election

Major’s Conservatives win an unexpected, but wafer thin majority.

What if different decisions had been made: Neil Kinnock, then Labour Leader and perhaps an even bigger Europhile than John Major would have made it into No.10. Significant tranches of EU assimilation policy such as Devolution/Regionalisation may well have made it onto the Statute book sooner. We may not have been taken out of the ERM, which in turn could have committed us to losing the Pound and gaining the single currency. Labour may never have had John Smith or Tony Blair as Leaders. We could have had a Tory Government again at the end of Kinnock’s first Term in 1996 or 1997. There is no certainty that we would have become involved in the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, if in turn they had happened.

John Smith becomes Labour Leader

With Neil Kinnock having failed to Lead the Labour Party back to power in either 1987 or 1992, it was time for him to step down.

John Smith, the respected Scottish Labour MP was elected Labour Leader and settled in to taking Labour in a new direction.

What if different decisions had been made: Had another Labour MP been Elected Opposition Leader at this point, there is a very good chance that they would have led Labour into the 1997 General Election rather than Tony Blair. This could have presented the Electorate with a very different choice and may have been the end of the New Labour project before it even began.

UK exit from the ERM

John Major’s most regrettable moment was the day that then Chancellor Norman (Now Lord) Lamont had to take the UK out of the ERM.

What if different decisions had been made:  Our economy could have been destroyed by staying within the harmonisation system, owing to the ERM requirement for the currencies of Members States to be very tightly synchronised. Up and coming politicians such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown might not have seen the obvious risks of adopting the Euro as a shared currency. John Major might have gone on to win the 1997 General Election, bearing in mind that it was events like this which allowed Major’s Conservative Party to be financially inept, when the truth was no such thing.

1994

Tony Blair becomes Labour Leader

Following the untimely death of John Smith, the Labour Party Leadership Contest that followed was a watershed moment for the Labour Party and was to become the point that the New Labour project as an electoral force was born.

What if different decisions had been made: Another Labour MP would have been their Leader. Gordon Brown may have taken the job. Labour may not have won the 1997 General Election. Labour May not have won three General Elections in a row. The Iraq War might never of happened or the UK might never have become involved. Labour’s 1997-2010 overspend and the 2010 onwards period of ‘Austerity’ might never have come into being.

1997

General Election

New Labour’s historic landslide victory decimated the Tory Party, destroyed Conservative confidence and committed the UK to the direction of a charismatic and equally ambitious Prime Minister who saw their career as being very much aligned towards a bigger ‘world’ stage.

What if different decisions had been made: John Major’s Conservatives may have won another Term. There may have been a hung parliament or coalition government. Devolution might never of happened. The Scottish Parliament might not exist. The Welsh Assembly might not exist. We might not have signed the Lisbon Treaty. We might never have entered the single market as it stands today. We might never have had a question over Free Movement and Immigration. We may never have been involved in Iraq of Afghanistan. We might never have had such a significant debt in 2010, that Austerity – even as an idea had been deemed necessary. We might already have been out of Europe.

William Hague becomes Tory Leader

20 Years after his famous Conservative Party Conference Speech as a 16 year old, William Hague is elected Leader of the Conservative Party.

Inheriting a Parliamentary group which felt itself destroyed by the Labour victory earlier that year, Hague effectively walked into a role where keeping the Conservative Party engine running was about all that he could reasonably do in the circumstances. His greatest unacknowledged success was likely to be preventing the Party from becoming the spent force that it could have been.

What if different decisions had been made: Conservative Party may never have returned to Government. Hague may have become Tory Leader later, and then even PM himself.

1997 onwards

Devolution

Probably one of the biggest fibs told by Blair, his Government and the Labour Party was the one about his idea for Devolution and the ‘devolved Assemblies’.

Always part of the ‘European Plan’ to break up National identities into smaller, controllable Regions that could never again seek to acquire or execute power in a national form, on his ascendency Blair immediately embraced Devolution to win favour with the heads of the EU. He actually sold it to the Public as being a process of bringing democracy closer to people.

The truth was that Devolution and Regionalisation was all part of a process of creating hollow forms of ‘localised’ Government with real power being taken away from the UK and deposited undemocratically in Brussels to be used in a very different and autocratic form.

The sprat to catch the mackerel was the things like big funding giveaways to local areas, all branded as being available only with European Funding. You’ve seen the signs telling you everywhere that it was European Money being spent on this project and that. But this was always British Taxpayers money, redistributed, rebranded and packaged as a way of promoting European generosity when it was quite another thing altogether. It was a bribe in its most basic form.

What if different decisions had been made: There might not have been a Scottish Parliament. The SNP might have never secured an Independence Vote. Nicola Sturgeon may never have been the Holyrood Lead. Ruth Davidson might already be an MP in the Westminster Parliament. The UK might not have been at significant risk of breakup as it is today.

1999

Establishment of Scottish Parliament

Following the Devolution process, the Scottish Parliament was first established in May 1999.

What if different decisions had been made: We may never have had the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. David Cameron may never have weaponised the SNP by making unnecessary concessions the morning after. The Conservatives might never have won a majority in the 2015 General Election. The 2016 European Referendum may never have happened. Brexit as a word could have never been invented. None of us would now be worrying what Leave might look like. Theresa May might never have been Prime Minister. We might now have Ed Milliband as Prime Minister, working his way towards a 2020 General Election. Jeremy Corbyn might never have become Labour Leader.

2001

General Election

Tony Blair’s New Labour win an almost identical result to the 1997 General Election, leaving the Conservative Party well and truly stumped.

What if different decisions had been made: William Hague might have been Prime Minister. There could have been a completely different Leader of the Labour Party soon after. We might have left Afghanistan earlier. We might never have been involved in the Iraq War. We might now have had a Labour Government led by a politician who we will now never know.

Iain Duncan Smith becomes Tory Leader

William Hague steps down and hands over the Opposition Leadership keys to Iain Duncan Smith (IDS).

The only real commonality between the two is being the butt of press ridicule and the hard reality that under both periods of Leadership, the Conservative Party appears to be going nowhere.

What if different decisions had been made: It’s quite possible that another Tory MP would have become Conservative Party Leader. The Tories might have won the 2005 General Election. We might never have been involved in Iraq.

You are beginning to get the picture.

2003

Michael Howard becomes Tory Leader

IDS accepts that he cannot lead the Conservative Party as it is. Michael (Now Lord) Howard has previous Government experience, is a ‘seasoned’ politician and is Elected Party Leader.

Howard’s arrival heralds the first real indications that the Conservative Party is ready to embrace change.

What if different decisions had been made: The Conservative Party might have not returned to Government in 2010. David Cameron may not have been Elected Tory Leader in 2005 and become Prime Minister in 2010. The SNP might not have bee given a Referendum. Brexit may never have happened….

Are you starting to picture the links?

2005

General Election

Tony Blair wins New Labour Election Victory No.3. The Tories pick up a few seats and there is a sense of small change, but in practical terms, at this stage at least, it resembles none.

What if different decisions had been made: Michael Howard would have been Prime Minister. Gordon Brown might never have become Labour Leader and in 2007, the PM. David Cameron may never have become Tory Leader. The Lisbon Treaty may never have been signed. The Immigration issue might never have materialised. The Scottish Referendum might never have happened. Brexit might not have been invented. We might now have another Labour Government with a PM who would have been….?

David Cameron becomes Tory Leader

Following the Tories third successive defeat to New Labour, Michael Howard knows that he has to do what is best for the direction of the Conservative Party which means only one thing.

Howard remains leader whilst a Tory Leadership Campaign takes shape, leaving contenders ‘2001 new boy David Cameron’ and ‘Europhile Big Beast Ken Clarke’ to fight it out for a Membership Vote Win.

David Cameron wins the Leadership race and becomes Tory Leader.

What if different decisions had been made: Ken Clarke might have become Prime Minister in 2010. We might now be more involved with the EU than ever before and Brexit would for many still be a hopeless dream. Gordon Brown might have won a Labour Majority in 2010, or at worst, been the leader of a Labour/Lib Dem Coalition, with the Tories perhaps broken, reforming as a new party or doing something else somewhere in between. The Milliband Brothers might still have been on a Labour Front Bench. Jeremy Corbyn could still be out of sight on the back benches.

2007

Gordon Brown ‘Crowned’ PM

Awaiting his moment noisily in No.11, Gordon Brown became Prime Minister on Tony Blair’s Resignation in June 2007.

Without the same skills and attributes of his immediate predecessor, Brown was unable to wow the crowds. The biggest moment of his tenure probably came with the event of the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis when his Government bailed out the privately owned Banks using Public Money, thereby sending the National Debt stratospheric from the point where after 10 years of Labour profligate spending already, it should never ever have already been.

What if different decisions had been made: We might have had a different Labour Prime Minister from 2007 until the next General Election which could have come in 2009 or 2010. Labour could have won a majority in 2010 or been the lead player in a hung parliament. David Cameron might never have been PM. Nick Clegg could still be in frontline Politics. The Lib Dems could now have been the third biggest Party in Parliament.

2010

General Election

The result of the General Election is hung.

Backroom deals are the flavour of the day, and whilst Brown sits it out in No.10 hoping for enough support to patch together a ‘Rainbow Coalition’ which keeps the Tories out of power, Nick Clegg does a deal with David Cameron which creates the Coalition Government with Cameron as PM and Clegg as Deputy PM.

As part of ‘the deal’, Cameron agrees to a Referendum on an Alternative Vote system. The two also agree to pass the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which technically secures a standard 5-year term for any Government, and removes the ability of a sitting PM to call a General Election without having to ‘work’ the Parliamentary system to do so.

A disproportionate number of Lib Dem MP’s secure Ministerial Office, causing significant upset within the Conservative Party.

Nick Clegg is forced to renege on his commitment to scrap Tuition Fees for Students.

Gordon Brown steps down as Labour Party Leader.

What if different decisions had been made: Gordon Brown could have remained PM and leader of a ‘Rainbow Coalition made up of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc. David Cameron might have resigned. The Scottish Independence Referendum might have been held and Independence won. There might not have been an EU Referendum in 2016. There might have been a different Conservative Leader of the opposition fighting the 2015 General Election. David Milliband could have been the next Labour Leader.

Ed Milliband becomes Labour Leader

Now consigned to the memory of just a few, Gordon Brown’s departure left a vacancy which led to a fight between two ambitious politicians, but one of a family kind too.

Both David Milliband, who had ministerial experience, and his younger brother Ed, squared up to each other in a campaign which to this day has a cloud over it because of the way that the Labour Party attributed votes to this Leadership race.

Despite lacking the level of credibility of his older brother, Ed won the Labour Leadership.

What if different decisions had been made: David Milliband could have become Labour Leader and might now have been Prime Minister too. Jeremy Corbyn might never have become Labour Leader. Theresa May might never have become Prime Minister. Boris could still have been London Mayor.

2011

The Alternative Vote Referendum (AV)

Purely at the insistence of new Deputy PM Nick Clegg, and as one of the key ‘prices’ of 5 years support in Coalition for the Tory-led Government and David Cameron as PM, a Referendum was held in early May to consider replacing the First Past The Post electoral system with AV instead.

Based on Proportional Representation, the system favours small Political Parties and moves the emphasis from voting for a named representative to direct Party support.

Proportional Representation is a much less democratic system, focusing the shift towards supporting policy in a snapshot moment, which is always thereafter subject to change, in stead of providing the opportunity to select the best person to represent a constituency and be responsible in adapting to the changes during their elected term, but always doing so in respect of the common good.

The vote was lost by an overwhelming majority against the change of 67.9%.

What if different decisions had been made: It is likely that First Past the Post would now be dead, and all political offices would be elected using forms of proportional representation. We might never again have a majority Government sitting in the Westminster Parliament. Anything that the public now vote for might never again even have the chance to matter, because policy would always be decided between the Political Groups who make deals after each election to patch together a coalition, because none of them could achieve an outright win. We might never have had a European Referendum. David Cameron might have been the last ever Conservative PM. Jeremy Corbyn might never again have been elected as an MP.

2014

European Elections

I’ve included the European Parliamentary Elections in 2014, not because the European Parliament itself is influential. It is not.

The Parliament is little more than a patsy, created only to give the wider EU autocracy the appearance of being a democratic institution. It is not.

It is included because of the UK Result, which saw the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) win an additional 11 Seats, making them the biggest UK presence with 24 Seats in the European Parliament.

The result sent shockwaves through Westminster. UKIP was suddenly a real electoral threat to the Establishment ‘status quo’.

What if different decisions had been made: It is likely to have been the key deciding factor in David Cameron’s promise to hold a Referendum on EU Membership as part of his 2015 Manifesto for the General Election Campaign. It is likely that he thought the result would be another 5 years of Coalition with the Lib Dems at best, or at worst, a Vote he would have lost and seen Ed Milliband in No.10.

Would Cameron have promised the EU Referendum if he had been certain of electoral victory in 2015? We may never honestly know.

Scottish Independence Referendum

The result of the Referendum on the Question of Scottish Independence on 14th September 2014 was a majority against of 55.3% to yes of 44.7%.

The outcome itself may not have had any significant impact upon anything other than what the SNP would do next.

It was David Cameron’s decision to come out on to the steps of No.10 the following morning and make a range of commitments to the SNP, which was probably a lot more influential upon what was now in store.

What if different decisions had been made: Scotland might now be an independent Country. But the SNP might well have committed the Scots to Remaining within the EU at that time if the different chronology had given the EU a different view. That is of course if the 2015 General Election result had subsequently been the same.

2015

General Election

David Cameron’s Conservatives win an unexpected small, but nonetheless working majority in the Commons.

The Coalition is over. Cameron is committed to holding the European Referendum.

What if different decisions had been made: Ed Milliband would have been Prime Minister. The European Referendum would never have been held. We might ask the question what is Brexit? Jeremy Corbyn would never have become Labour Leader. Labour Momentum would never have existed.

Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour Leader

No. It was far from being a certainty. Yet Jeremy Corbyn cleaned up in the Labour Leadership Election following Ed Milliband’s post-General Election Resignation.

Corbyn was never taken seriously as a Candidate, and it is regrettably likely that at other times sensible Labour MP’s gave him their support to run, with the intent of causing disruption to the Campaigns of more credible participants. Those who did so were blind to the even the short-term realities of the outcome if Corbyn actually won.

Which he did.

What if different decisions had been made: Labour might have had a more credible, mainstream leader, who isn’t a Marxist at their core. Labour may well have won the 2017 General Election. The Brexit Negotiations might have now been in the hands of a Labour Leader. Theresa May might never have become Prime Minister. Boris might now be leader of the opposition.

2015-16

David Cameron’s EU ‘Renegotiation’

The Renegotiation of the relationship between the UK and EU that never was.

It is likely that following on from the many dubious wins against an unknowing pubic in which ambitious politicians had previously used manipulation, spin and complete bullshit to win before, Cameron had concluded that big theatrics and dramatics suggesting real effort resulting in something meaningful, would line him up for a Referendum Win.

The reality was that Cameron never achieved anything even remotely meaningful in his ‘renegotiations’, and the EU was already viewing the intrsigence of a Member State which had the audacity to question its future with the EU as being insubordinate and behaviour which must quickly be consigned to the bin.

So sure of success was Cameron and his closest allies such as then Chancellor George Osborne, that they never even began work on putting together the steps of a Contingency Plan, if their attempted stitch-up leading to a Remain Win in the EU Referendum was then denied.

What if different decisions had been made: In theory, Cameron could have really gone for the jugular when he squared up to ask the questions of the EU, from which real results could have given him a genuine Referendum Win.

In reality, the EU has made very clear that every nation which becomes a Member is restricted to the same rules and must therefore consider itself without any real means of having separate identity.

Once you are in, it doesn’t matter what bullshit you give to Voters (or sleeping politicians), you accept that EU Members States behave as one.

2016

European Referendum

The Leave or No Vote wins 51.9% to 48.1% (A difference of 1,269, 501 Votes with a 72.21% turnout of the Electorate).

Britain’s Exit – thereafter known as ‘Brexit’ is born.

What if different decisions had been made: David Cameron would probably have still been our PM. We may well have now been on the way to adopting the Euro. We might well have been up to our necks in surrendering what’s left of the armed services to the new ‘Euro Army’. There would probably have been an increase in European workers coming to the UK. The rate of Public Services crashing through lack of funding may well have increased substantially. The list of more and more powers being surrendered to Brussels would probably now have been much much longer. It is likely that the true designs of the EU to become the United States of Europe would now be in the open, either directly, but more likely through yet more manipulative PR management which is designed to make all of us think that everything is staying the same.

David Cameron Resigns

Probably one of the most notable ‘oh fuck’ moments of recent UK political history, would have come at around 25 minutes to 5 on the morning of 24th June 2016, to the then occupant of No.10.

We know that Cameron didn’t see the No Vote coming. We know he didn’t because the Establishment didn’t expect it. And there are a great many Leavers who despite voting NO, didn’t quite believe it was possible to win our Freedom through a democratic process too.

To be fair to David Cameron, he clearly never believed in Brexit. Although he had given the impression that he would lead the implementation of a No result, accepting that he could not deliver something that he didn’t himself want and that resigning was therefore the right thing, was almost certainly the most responsible thing for him to do in the circumstances. Unfortunately, it was a point missed by Remainers in the Cabinet who coveted the top job.

What if different decisions had been made: If Cameron had stayed, there may have been many similarities to the current Premiership of Theresa May, in that his heart would not have been in Brexit and instead of building a relationship between two separate entities, he would have likely focused all efforts on doing the absolute minimum that would be seen to qualify as ‘Leave’. 

Alternatively, he might well have embraced the instruction from the British People in the spirit that it was given, and done everything to get the best from a situation where nobody from either side could genuinely predict everything that could be achieved.

The big difference is likely to have been that Cameron is unlikely to have called the 2017 General Election, which would have in turn given him choices with a working majority, that Theresa May would by now never have.

Boris knifed

It was an open secret that Boris had returned to the Commons as an MP with the Leadership of the Tory Party in mind.

So when Cameron lit the fuse on the Leadership contest, few were under any illusion that Boris wouldn’t be one of the two final contenders when the Vote went out to Conservative Party Members.

That was until on the morning of Boris announcing his Candidacy, Michael Gove’s change of mind in supporting him as a Leadership Contender came fully into view.

Boris had nowhere to go. And whilst the true aim of Gove’s decision to pull the rug from under Boris’s Leadership chances may never be known, the intervention did nothing to help Gove’s own hopes of becoming Conservative Party Leader.

Before anyone had the chance to take a second breath, the contest was already down to just two.

What if different decisions had been made: Despite the many voices ranged against him, Boris Johnson was likely to have become PM, and was almost certain to have done so if the question had gone out to Conservative Party Members.

The talk of Boris being nothing but ambition rang true, not simply because Boris was and remains ambitious – he does. But because it is the same ambition that is rife amongst all the senior Members of the Conservative Party, who are desperate for their leadership hopes to come to fruition – no matter the real cost.

Boris may be to some no more than a lovable buffoon. But what he has which beyond the pure, unadulterated form of ambition which drives many of his Conservative colleagues, is the skill to read and often be a step ahead of the public mood, just in time to make decisions that can actually work out well for Voters too.

This ability is likely to have served him very well during negotiations with the EU, and in delivering a clean Brexit. Because Boris being loyal to Boris, he would have ensured that he was committed to delivering what the real public – that’s everyone beyond the bubble of Westminster – has demanded that the PM and Party of Government should actually achieve.

Boris’ moment may come again very soon. But the terrain is now much different and outcomes that could have easily been very different if different choices had been made, will now influence the outcomes of responding actions and outcomes to come, whether deliberate or otherwise.

Whether or not Boris would be good leading the UK in a crisis situation, like the wartime Leader Churchill who he wishes us to see his behaviour modelled upon is a different question altogether.

Like May being ‘Crowned’ in 2016 to ‘take care of Brexit’, we might soon step into a very different kind of Government Leadership which will not be about Leave or Remain, but responding simply to a very long list of unknowns.

Andrea Leadsom exits Tory Leadership contest

Leadsom seemed to appear from nowhere and as such, didn’t appear to have the baggage of the other final contestant in the Tory Leadership Campaigns – Theresa May.

But where May had made keeping her mouth shut during the European Referendum an art form, Leadsom’s inexperience with the Media regrettably led her into a mess over making comments relating to her understanding as a mother which was unavailable to Theresa May. From that moment, her time as a Candidate to become next Prime Minister was pretty much done.

What if different decisions had been made: Theresa May might not have been Prime Minister, as Leadsom may have been much more appealing to the Conservative Party Membership, once the Campaigning side of Theresa May which we only saw in the 2017 General Election Campaign had come into general view. The 2017 General Election might never have been called. The Conservatives might now have a working majority to push through a meaningful Brexit.

Theresa May ‘Crowned’ PM

With Andrea Leadsom stepping out of the Tory Leadership Contest, Theresa May become the de facto Conservative Leader Elect.

Cameron quickly went to the Queen and stepped aside.

May entered Downing Street giving everyone the impression that when it came to Brexit, she was now committed and very much on the UK side.

What if different decisions had been made: Pretty much what has been discussed under Boris and Andrea Leadsom above. But May wouldn’t have been PM and the chances are that one way or another, we would not be in such a terrible mess as we are today.

2017

Article 50 Triggered

At the end of March 2017, Theresa May triggered Article 50, the device or ‘clause’ for a Member nation to Leave the EU.

This action started a 2-year countdown to 11pm on Friday 29th March 2019, when the UK would formally leave EU Membership.

What if different decisions had been made: Triggering Article 50 – assuming that the UK leaving the EU would always be conducted in relation to EU processes – was not a question of if, but was certainly a question of when.

May could have waited and overseen full preparation before doing so which would ideally have included a real understanding of what Brexit must achieve, therefore allowing the negotiations between Triggering Article 50 and Leaving to be meaningful in between.

Alternatively, May could have got on with triggering Artcile 50 much sooner, working on Brexit from the point of the UK being independent and then developing a new relationship with the EU for whatever would then happen for the future, rather than doing everything possible to Remain, whilst doing the absolute minimum to sell her efforts as a commitment to Leave.

General Election

It was so clear that Theresa May was sure of Victory and of winning an increased majority that would ensure her plans for Brexit were delivered.

Despite the Party machine not being ready, there already being a small but nonetheless working majority in the Commons in place, nor the fact her ability as a ‘street-fighting campaign leader’ had ever been tested, May listened to the Polls, went for the General Election, and assumed that like everything else, public support was no more than a question of applying process, and that her glowing future would soon be in the bag.

Things quickly began to unwind. Corbyn proved himself good on the stump, making hollow promises which appealed to aspirations without any respect for practicality, and the Lib Dems, still nowhere after the 2015 rejection, were not even in the middle and nowhere to be seen.

May couldn’t match Corbyn on the Campaign trail and was soon exposed as not being ‘natural’ with people, being far too scripted, meanwhile exhibiting all the behaviour which has made the label ‘Maybot’ stick – and in doing so seem very fair.

What if different decisions had been made: May could have had a working majority now BEFORE attempting to do deals to allow for the Conservative die-hard Remain faction. The Parliamentary pathway to where we are now might have been much smoother over recent months, giving the PM more room to play with as she dealt with the EU. Olly Robbins would probably not have been the Civil Servant leading the Brexit negotiations.

£1 Billion that could have been spent elsewhere on Public Services might not have been firehosed at Northern Ireland at the price of securing 10 DUP Votes for the duration of the Parliamentary Term.

2018

‘The Chequers Plan’

In the Summer of 2018, May’s true credentials as a Remainer Prime Minister and her Plan to welch on Brexit finally came into view.

Within days, David Davis, then Brexit Secretary and then Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary had resigned.

Yet all other Cabinet Ministers remained still and quiet, heralding yet more concessions on the part of the MP’s who had the real ability to stop this whole charade, and rescue Brexit from the mess it is now; the sell-out of democracy that in May’s hands, it is still likely to be.

What if different decisions had been made: More of the Cabinet could and arguably should have resigned.

The cumulative numbers of resignation at the top level would have soon made May’s continued Premiership untenable and a new Conservative Leader would have by now been crowned.

That there has only ever been talk of further Cabinet Resignations until now is a worrying sign.

For the Conservative Party, it may mean a bleak future. Culturally, the Cabinet incumbents are far more focused on lining themselves up ‘securely’ for a leadership bid, rather than doing for the Country all that is right. 

The thing that they all need to remember is that no matter what they do or choose, only one of the current crop of Conservative MP’s could replace May as Prime Minister, but the ridiculousness of their own ambition is now making even that option look very tough indeed.

In Summary & Ending

As I suggested earlier, these points are all a view of what has happened, set against just a few of the possibilities of what could have been if sometimes very small decisions had been made.

The point I am making is that from small decisions, BIG consequences are formed. And those consequences are rarely apparent in immediate view.

Consequences can be anticipated and accurately so. But they cannot be controlled and it is certainly true that every action will have a reaction, even when the person or persons taking that action are no longer involved.

Theresa May and the Establishment, along with the EU are currently doing everything that they can to manufacture a very different kind of Brexit to the one which the People intended, either deliberately or through acts of unintended stupidity.

These are actions that are not only going to impact on the true outcome of Brexit, but on many other things in both the UK and Europe which right now are out of sight, out of mind.

Because of their actions in trying to manipulate Brexit, they will ultimately deliver unintended consequences and outcomes which would otherwise unlikely to have ever been seen.

 

Read this Blog on your Kindle

 

 

 

The EU intended to break up the UK all along and May is just another Remain PM singing along to the very same song

October 15, 2018 Leave a comment

img_1574

Divide and conquer is one of those old rules or strategies which has an uncanny habit of working in many ways. It is most successful when the parties subjected to it are so entrenched with their own priorities, they remain blissfully unaware of what is happening.

In the past 24 hours, the ridiculous nature of the so-called negotiations between our Government and the EU over Brexit have finally reached a stage where some of the more sinister aims of the European Union have been outed.

Incompetent and as duplicitous as Theresa May and her Team have been, the lack of understanding of the EU and its modus operandi has been ignored, or at best misunderstood. Not only by those who voted Remain. But also by many Leavers who with the British spirit of fair play, have believed that those in a so-called forty-year relationship with us would treat us exactly the same.

We have all been misguided to believe that the EU would be reasonable over negotiations which would always have been easy to secure benefits that specifically went their way.

If a clearer message was ever needed to spell out just how dangerous the EU really is, it must surely be the demand for a ‘backstop’ set against a ‘backstop’ for Northern Ireland.

We should be under no illusion that this would be an agreement that once confirmed would almost certainly guarantee the break up of the United Kingdom, rather than keeping it as England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as it now is.

Whilst painted as a ‘backstop’, neither of the two forms of this misnamed safety net or facilitation device is what is appears to be.

The EU has a time-served history of using and abusing anything or any term that it manages to insert within Agreements.

Its deviousness is always anchored within the deliberate ambiguity of terms which it uses. It always uses language differences and what deliberately appear to be basic issues of interpretation to do all the painful work for them. Meanwhile painting themselves as having always been very reasonable and committed to some high-flung community-cased ideal.

It’s all hokum. The EU knows that the most effective way to build its own idea of a union, is to break down the constituent parts of member Countries, into Regions or by placing emphasis on publicly identifiable regional areas appearing to give them a sense of their own identity, destiny and self-determination.

They do so whilst removing any of the tools which would allow any of these Regionas to actually achieve such seemingly reasonable aims, whilst directing true power even further away to Brussels, where the futures of every ‘European Citizen’ will be decided by autocrats. A technically non-reversible process by design, where true democracy will become all but a memory, and very quickly left behind.

Yes, I agree that a statement like that doesn’t sound right. And to many it doesn’t.

But many will also remember the push for the development of multiple UK Regions, which included the processes of Devolution for Scotland and Wales, and what without a struggle on the part of many would have seen England also carved up to resemble the European Parliamentary Constituencies – a victory that we should all at some point be grateful that the EU was denied.

Devolution itself was not the great giveaway to the people or an act of political generosity on the part of Tony Blair as he and his Government then wanted us all to think.

It was the price that an overly ambitious and self-serving Prime Minister was prepared to pay as he attempted to curry favor with the hierarchy of the EU.

It was an act completely devoid of either foresight or concern for the consequences of what in terms of our National Union, the process of Devolution had the potential to do.

Devolution and Regionalisation, sold through the dubious lens of devolving power and of creating ‘localism’ as Cameron painted it, was never what any of these white elephants of governance were really about.

They are nothing more than dubious tools to create a pyrrhic connection and public misconception of close interaction with a federated structure of government. A patsy sub-decision making governmental structure, free from the ability to conduct any meaningful form of decision making at National level – the consequences of which I shall leave for you to ponder.

Where Blair and the last Labour Government failed as the EU’s stooges, May’s intransigence has brought us critically close to allowing the EU to achieve what the Brexit Vote should have in one moment permanently denied.

If in the process of ‘delivering’ an agreement over Brexit with the EU in the coming days Theresa May finds a way to leave any question remaining over the integrity of Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of our Country, rest assured that it will be our very identity as a Nation – not just the Conservative Party which will be well and truly screwed.

The EU is the idealists’ nirvana. That’s why Brexit is visceral, instinctive and for some Leavers hard to explain, whereas many Remainers are simply addicted to the EU and will do whatever it takes to keep things the same

September 18, 2018 Leave a comment

Wolf Sheep ClothingIts not often that I find myself laughing about anything to do with Brexit. A no-deal, or rather the position from which negotiations should have started is where we should actually be. Yet over two years later, Theresa May’s Government is still pretending that the UK can be independent whilst maintaining the functions of a member state.

I laughed this morning, when I heard that a high profile Remainer had branded Leavers as idealists, knowing full well that nothing could be further from the truth.

When people who should know better are busy calling people names, they do after all often betray the way that they really see themselves, deep down and at a level our conscious world is all too happy for us to miss.

The European Union has, is and will continue to be the idealists nirvana, both strategically and functionally until the day that it ceases to exist.

The EU’s history is much better documented than the behaviour of most Politicians and Opinionators would have us think.

A little reading would soon uncover the true origins and chronology of the European Project. Its original, its evolving and its often self-interest-laden aims. And how like the work of all quixotic idealists, the central tenet upon which the whole thing is built, is the pathway to complete control, cleverly camouflaged as a way to maintain peace, prosperity, a sense of belonging and of course gold-laden career opportunities for politicians who have forgotten where they came from.

The European Commission’s cultural mindset is that it understands the function of the world, all businesses and people within it, better than the people and businesses which are functioning within.

This is best demonstrated by the endless train of regulation that nobody in the UK actually asked for. Rules and standards that often make little sense, but make life increasingly expensive, politically correct and devoid of humanity in relationships because some rule created by a bureaucrat with a great idea in another Country has been introduced instructing us how people they will never meet should interact in between.

The European Union not only works, but its influence in every part of life fervently accepted, because we are trusting and assume that ideal measures introduced to manage anything can only ever be a good thing.

They are not.

Since we joined the Common Market, an earlier stage of the United States of Europe’s life-cycle, life for us all in the UK has began to become unrecognisable, with behaviour, morals and values smashed in pursuit of nothing more than the idealist EU’s dream.

That the British People, and a majority of them at that, have recognised that there is an alternative truth and within it a better way to exist and prioritise the people, businesses and communities that we care for is not idealist.

It is being real and knowing that we have already for too long been on a destructive legislative pathway which without immediate change will soon control even more of our lives and the way that we think.

And all those MP’s and Establishment idealists who are singing to the EU’s tune during these so-called negotiations, instead of carrying out the process which the Electorate instructed should be aware of just one thing.

The EU is reliant upon the principle that when you finally begin to wake up from aiding and abetting what is in reality a foreign power to win, the EU’s measures of control will have progressed simply too far for any rebellion against it to be even mildly fruitful, should any one of you then be brave enough to even begin.

image thanks to unknown

‘Out means out’ is the clear message that would give certainty to the Brexit Process

August 4, 2017 1 comment

Unspoken words illustrated by actions, almost always speak more loudly than the words which accompany them. The approach which has been taken by Theresa May’s Government towards Brexit is certainly no different.

Management of expectation should be fluent practice for the politicians who have reached the heights of having a seat at the top table in the land. So it would be reasonable to conclude that the jumping off point for the Brexit Negotiations provides us with an accurate picture of the priorities of the Government for delivering our exit process.

Begin-with-the-end-in-mind.

It is of no great surprise that many people are concerned, given that Brexit looks like an unholy mess. One which is playing into the hands of ardent Remainers such as Vince Cable, given that the whole approach to the process has been in many ways portrayed as being about doing the minimum necessary to qualify the UK as no longer being an EU Member.

The current approach could more accurately be framed as over-promising with the quiet or unintended expectation that they will ‘be given no choice’ but to under deliver. The alternative would be the more robust and arguably honest approach of being clear from the start with us all by stating that we are now going to be completely out of European Union Membership once the Article 50 Notice Period is complete, and that anything we gain in our interests thereafter will be a benefit.

What could then accurately be called an under-promise leading to what anyone who sees our true relationship with our European Partners will know will be a significant lessening of expectations in terms of what the Government will then assuredly over-deliver.

While more than a year may now have passed since the EU Referendum with Negotiations in Brussels now appearing to be underway, it is far from too late to adopt this approach.

Yes, giving this level of clarity to the overall message would draw criticism from Remainers who continue to be convinced that they can influence the Negotiation Process to a degree where Brexit would occur in name only. But it would also provide a distinct level of certainty within what for us all will remain a fluid situation for a long time to come, where stepping off now with the worst case scenario providing a basis for our negotiating position going forward being a far more productive place to begin.

To continue managing the public perception of the Brexit process in the way that it is, the Government appears to be either attempting to be all things to all people – which even when well intended is unlikely to work; or is playing the rather dangerous game of planning for the UK to remain technically tied to Membership of the European Union via a relationship which the majority of British people do not want.

Yes, there are very big interests with equally big voices making very loud predictions of doom and gloom, openly threatening to leave the UK if their needs aren’t prioritised.

A perfectly sensible question in response would be to ask them why they are here anyway if the European Market is that much more important than our own.

The reality however, is that these self-serving overtures are really nothing more than a plea to a political class to keep everything which works profitably for those interests basically the very same.

These businesses have had influence and power over Government for a very long time due to the role that money is seen to play in just about everything. Yet in terms of Brexit, Money has now come into direct conflict with democracy and the will of the People. Nobody should be in any doubt about the interests which will benefit most if the UK should in any way now Remain.

The message is clear. Things can never be the same as they were before 23rd June 2016. Obstructive as these other interests may be, they also deserve to receive a clear message from the Government about the direction of travel, so that they can work with their own worst case scenarios. Scenarios which you can be assured will prove to be a lot better when we have formally left the EU, than they would willingly have us all suppose now.

The damage being done daily with the current lacklustre approach in terms of the relationship between Westminster all British People – who have an evolving distrust of the establishment, has the potential to be far reaching, particularly if the Negotiation Process should ultimately result in an avoidable fudge.

Whilst no British voter has knowingly endorsed the process of ‘ever closer union’ which successive British Governments undertook to create an increasingly closer and subservient political union with the EU, it would be utterly foolish for political strategists to believe that they can somehow delay or prevent the distinct and clinical reversal of that unsanctioned action, when the democratic instruction given by the Referendum Vote was very clear.

Of course, any ardent Remainer reading these words can and will pick holes in an argument like this by using their own view of Brexit and the Referendum itself to justify alternative reasoning. Democracy does after all only work for some when they are getting the results that they themselves want.

As a supporter of leaving the European Union from a time long before it ever became politically fashionable to be so, I can nonetheless say that I did not feel comfortable with the polarity delivered by the Referendum Campaign. Yet it has become ridiculous that a follow-up debate about ‘what Brexit will look like’ should then have been allowed to develop by the establishment and then framed as an optional change which can come in a choice of shades, wrapped up as either a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit.

Accepting that we are leaving – as most Political Parties now at least indicate that they do, would sound much more sincere, convincing and less like they were paying mere lip service to this inevitable change if all were to adopt a more definite tone such as ‘out means out’, rather than ‘Brexit means Brexit’. One which not only makes clear but endorses the otherwise universally held understanding that you cannot remain attached and at the same time be genuinely separate or no longer a part of something – as the British Electorate have commanded that we must now be.

In my last blog, I discussed the reality and impact of ideas or ideologies in politics rather than management according to all the facts. Brexit has regrettably come to fall under the same umbrella of ideas. It should be clear that our perspective of the process and creation of policy right at this moment in time and how things will actually work when we arrive at March 2019 will not then be the same as now or at any point thereafter.

The only certainty is that we are leaving and that is why it would be far more productive to talk in terms of the relationship that the UK then aims to have with the EU as being an aspiration, instead of a fixed relationship that we the or they in some way have the power to guarantee.

Acceptance that all sides of UK Politics have something to bring to this debate is essential and must replace the virtue signalling and disingenuous assumption of moral authority adopted by some, who fail to understand the expectations of everyone with views and feelings from outside their own bubbles. Especially so, as they refuse to work with those who do or have an alternative view to their own.

Just as if we were destined to travel to the top of a hill, it would be generally accepted as inevitable that there would be a climb involved in getting there. There may of course be different routes, choices of gradients or even helicopter rides to assist us to ascend. But one way or the other, we know that we will have to have reached the top of the hill itself before we ourselves know and everyone else will fully accept that we have got there.

In terms of our exit from European Union, complete UK Sovereignty is the top of that hill.

Regaining the power for our Westminster Parliament to determine all rules, laws and the obligations under which we live and operate as a Nation must be the red line above which nothing is acceptable in terms of influence from any other European Nation, combination thereof or indeed any foreign power.

To allow this key component of honouring its obligation the British Electorate to appear in some way negotiable – depending upon whether we can secure ‘agreement’ over certain things such as access to the Free Market, the need for a ‘Customs Union’ or the method under which we ‘can’ allow people to move across our Borders – The Government has perhaps unwittingly embarked upon a game of high stakes chess with the sanctity of the democratic relationship between it and the People.

To the Government, to the Opposition and to the other Political Parties with seats in Westminster beyond, it is the agenda of the British people which must be prioritised, first and foremost before any of their own, or indeed the very specific and self-serving interests which all too often support and therefore have influence over them.

All the Government really needs to do is change, make clear and evangelise the core message to one which reflects ‘out means out’ and then the support and understanding of how we can all work with and benefit from Brexit will soon begin to appear.

Whilst the siren calls of public figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury may suggest that the devil is in the detail, the real challenge for those across Government is to now genuinely commit to the journey. They will then find that the seemingly impossible level of technicalities to consider as part of the Brexit process will be much simpler to decide – even within the significant volumes that they will come.

%d bloggers like this: