Archive

Posts Tagged ‘General Election’

If the ERG want Brexit, they must lead it. The time has come to split the Conservative Party and prepare for a General Election

February 27, 2019 Leave a comment

img_2695

For me, Theresa May’s resolve to Remain and call it something else was never in doubt. But the cost of what she and her coterie of Remainers has and continues to do to this Country and our democracy is something else.

Whilst I am far from alone in anticipating that Brexit could finally split the Conservative Party once and for all, events this week suggest that the time has come where the benefit of the ERG and Brexiteer contingent remaining within Theresa May’s interpretation of mainstream conservatism is now severely outweighed by the disadvantages – especially in view of what is likely to come.

From the outside perspective, there is little doubt that the point of no return came when May won the December no confidence vote and became all but immovable for the 12 months ahead.

The Prime Minister has been the key component in a direction of travel which has brought us to the point where Remainers are now on the verge of successfully cancelling Brexit via indefinite delay.

Whilst May has been helped every step of the way by the contingent of Remain Ministers, there is little doubt that undeserved trust in the holder of the Office of British Prime Minister has regrettably contributed to previously avoidable difficulties with Brexit, many of which are yet to come.

Put bluntly, the only clear way to ensure that the Brexit which the British People Voted for is now delivered, is to replace the currently Remain-led Parliamentary majority with one which will prioritise the needs of the Electorate above their own, and deliver Brexit properly, without compromise and in every way and sense necessary to ensure that everyone, whether Leavers or Remainers will benefit from our post-Brexit opportunities just the same.

This outcome will not be possible if the political party structures, biases and motivations are the same as they are now, when the next General Election is called.

Above all, if there is to be any genuine ‘conservative’ influence over where we then go, that Election must be faught without the current Prime Minister remaining in post. That means either an election build up away from her sphere of influence, or the removal of May from No.10.

In reality, nobody under the Brexit wing of the Conservative Party should now genuinely believe that May will step aside anytime soon.

The passing of a vote of no confidence in May’s Government is the only way she will now be toppled before 2022. And with the dynamic in Parliament changing almost daily, it means that splitting the Conservative Party and going it alone has to now be the immediate, strategic, responsible and calculated choice for those who know that for democracy and the People to win through, there is a different way.

Support would flock to the banner of a new party committed to Brexit, but equipped to provide a policy platform which reaches way beyond the very specific set of issues relating to our relationship with Europe. Support of the kind necessary to create a party machine in the timescale required which is professional, fully funded and capable of forming a government in a matter of months.

An ERG breakaway and the momentum behind it offers a vehicle capable of doing all these things. It is unlikely to come from any other direction or evolve in any other form.

The key to realising that there is a great opportunity to deliver much better for us all, is for the Brexiteer MPs involved to start looking beyond their own echo chambers, to the world outside Westminster, outside of the Conservative Party, across the wide range of Leave supporters from all traditional Party backgrounds and to the needs and expectations of an entire Nation waiting to be inspired, which is sitting waiting with great concern beyond.

Any MP who cares about the will of the People has this chance to stand out for the right reasons or wait to be pushed out for all the wrong ones.

We, the People, are fed up with the contemptuous behaviour of those who we have entrusted to represent us in Government and repaid us by throwing that trust back in our faces.

It necessarily follows that the time is coming for change.

Please ERG and Leaver MPs from wherever you are, be the change now.

Show us all that there are still some politicians left at Westminster who have the integrity and courage to take all the steps required to do what is expected and necessary, but above all, what is genuinely right.

If MPs are so sure of the integrity of their position over Brexit, they should go to the People, remove Party Politics from the question and either stand categorically for Leave (‘no deal’) or Remain (‘things stay the same’)

January 21, 2019 Leave a comment

Ballot-box_1861302cBefore I kick off on making a suggestion that simply should never have to be made, I think it’s important to recognise that as a Country, the UK has now entered extraordinary times.

Extraordinary times require extraordinary solutions, changes, modifications and sometimes even directions too, in order to begin a process of repair, development or evolution which will get things to where they really should go.

Parliament has reached an impasse. One that shows no sign of going anywhere anytime soon. And the consequences for everyone have the potential to be very far reaching in practical terms, as well as the significant damage that the malign influences which are now at work at Westminster are going to do to democracy in this Country too.

We have no option but to look outside normal rules, behaviour, procedures and much more, if we are to resolve this considerable mess, made up of a list of problems of which I will only focus on those that are key, whilst acknowledging that there are more.

The problems

The congestion holding up any way forward is not the result of just a disagreement between two ideas. It is a rich mixture of many colliding ideas and questionable principles. What we really would be correct in calling in political terms, a perfect storm.

The decision to Leave which was taken by the British People was simple until the moment when it was taken. That was the very moment when the people in power took over control of the journey, but refused to see Leaving in anything other than in terms of what it would look like to Remain.

Today we are faced with a strange but nonetheless genuine reality that the Electorate is for Leave, whilst the people or rather the Politicians Elected to represent us are themselves in the majority for Remain.

It is this combination of anomalies at the base of everything now happening which is the root cause of the congestion which we face. And because we have a Parliament made up of MPs who cannot distinguish their own ideologies from the Will of the People, no matter what solution which they come up with under this Parliamentary make-up, or concoct for ‘leaving’, it will to some lesser or greater degree almost certainly be a form of Remain.

It doesn’t matter what MPs call it, or what this Parliament now does to try and legitimise whatever they do. If they do anything other than allow the UK to exit without a deal, on WTO Terms on Friday 29th March 2019, they will collectively be betraying the Will of the People, compromising Democracy, but above all bringing into question the very purpose of their roles and the reasoning behind what they were elected for too.

The solutions ‘on the table’ right now and likely to be tabled very soon, won’t solve the fundamental problems we are experiencing and are themselves poised to create many more problems than in these circumstances they could ever come to solve.

Another Referendum

A second referendum is flawed in principle before it could begin.

It is in effect a plan to overturn the legitimacy of a democratic plebiscite at National level before the original decision has even been implemented.

It brings into question the value of all Elections and as such questions whether even past General Election results are valid.

If we cannot have faith in those, how can any government look the result from the ballot box in the eye and know that they have legitimacy from a ‘win’?

Whilst there are groups throwing considerable amounts of money at this idea, they have not said what the questions on the Ballot Paper would be.

Nobody actually knows what ‘Remain’ would look like, whether it would be based on the pre-June 2016 model, whether it would result in increased integration with the EU, or what democratic influence the People would then be allowed to have upon it. For instance, would we be surrendering further opportunities to Leave?

The question of what Leave already looks like is continually being glossed over to mislead too.

Our Referendum choice in June 2016 was simply to Leave the EU.

Yet the influence of Remainers has blurred this into many different shades and forms, whilst doing everything to paint the choice we actually made as optional because it is something to be feared.

This is itself an act of betrayal on the part of those who should know better, because the whole pretence of having to have a deal to Leave is a phoney premise.

Building or developing a working relationship with the EU can only be constructive for the UK if we are looking forward in negotiations rather than backwards towards Europe. Legitimacy would only ever exist when negotiated from the point where Brexit really would be Brexit (Not as interpreted by Theresa May), Out is Out and Leave means Leave.

But the only questions that this Parliament would agree to because of the inherent biases which exist would be May’s Deal or Remain.

Nobody should be under any illusion that May’s deal may not be presented and sold as Remain, but the two options are fundamentally the same.

If we were to reach the point where this Parliament would agree to the only legitimate choice in a referendum – that of two questions – as any more questions presented would just result in more of the same – the delivery of a second vote for Leave or indeed whatever form of Remain, would still be under the influence of the very same Politicians we have right now who have now shown that they cannot act impartially in these circumstances.

A Referendum is therefore a practical, democratic and reasoned impossibility. And if you think the impasse is bad now, wait and see what these very same Politicians would do if a 2nd Vote came back even more overwhelming for Leave and not even near the same.

Calling an early General Election

The problem with calling an early General Election, is the result could actually be seen to legitimise the impasse.

This could guarantee that we are destined to have years of instability, but this time with unscrupulous politicians able to blame the People for the problem, and again put democracy as we know it completely in the frame.

With the Party system currently holding a monopoly over Parliamentary Elections and our default setting culturally to vote for the same tribe as we usually do (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem etc), we would end up pretty much electing the same crew as we’ve got behaving like overlords already.

Same-old, same-old, with perhaps a few tweaks here and there, maybe a new prime minister in No.10. But as far as the same logic and reasoning underpinning decision making, things will look well and truly the same.

We also risk ushering in a Marxist government, which would make the chaos surrounding the Brexit process now look comparatively very tame.

The kind of Brexit that a Labour Government under Corbyn would usher in would destroy all semblance of forward thinking, enterprise and opportunity, replacing it with regression, idealist-based detachment and the destruction of any kind of recognisable order that would leave all of us quickly wondering what the hell it is that we have become.

The Conservative Party removes Mrs May, or the PM steps aside (pretty much the same thing)

What would at any other time look like the most simple and most effective solution in a situation which resembles this is the one where the decision looks to have already been made.

If Theresa May were to step aside or be removed as Conservative Party Leader, there would be an opportunity for the Conservative Party to step in and effectively replace the current Administration with one that could change the way that Brexit is being handled and therefore the way that decisions are being made.

Unfortunately, the reasons why this obvious solution has not already been used, is that the Conservative Party is itself demographically representative of all politicians with a majority being focused on what works best for them, rather than for the people they represent – even though they will swear to you that the two things look exactly the same.

They would have to work together selflessly, and in effect crown a new Leader quickly, without going to the Membership, recognising that the priority is the Country, not who gets what job in Government once the decision has been made.

To kick off such a process of change anyway, would require a sufficient number of the Cabinet to act and accept that this pathway is the only way in which a new direction over Brexit can be created and then defined.

None of them will do this. As pretty much without exception, they all covet May’s ‘top job’ and don’t want to be seen as  the hand that wields the knife, as they believe that they will then never then be the one to wear the crown.

In reality, only one person can be our Prime Minister at any one time and it is only convention that says that when a new PM comes from within a sitting Government, it must be someone who has served at Ministerial Level before.

Let’s face it. This Parliament is already defying many conventions, so if our Politicians were minded, this would probably be the right time to recognise that this is what thinking outside the box and grabbing opportunities are really there for.

The other options

The other plans afoot which are of a more sinister nature, such as giving a minority the decision making power over a much larger Parliament, would be the first tangible steps towards creating a dictatorship.

It is a process that might involve a number of politicians. But make no mistake this is what the seeding of a dictatorship looks like. It simply has a different name.

The wider malaise

With the Political Party System broken and skewed to keep out free thinking and therefore the generation and development of the big beasts and political titans that the country now needs, whatever steps we take with this dysfunctional model still at work and able to influence, the names of the politicians may be different, but the end results are destined to be the same.

We are now in a trap of self-interests own making, and unless we do something very different – even if just in the short term, chaos and the problems which we will soon recognise as its bedfellows will be all that the UK is set to know.

Breaking the impasse

For reasons unknown and unidentifiable to many, the current Parliament and the procedure it is working with are not going to deliver Brexit in a collectively acceptable form.

I and many others believe this to be a great injustice and a slight to democracy.

But the reasons we are here today have developed over many years and have become manifest in many different forms.

We therefore need a solution which might not be what everyone wants, but is outside of the influence of self-interest or Establishment control. One that can be recognised as fair to all sides, but above all to the People, who if they must be asked for any further input in the Brexit process, should have the guarantee that their decision will not again be questioned. They must be assured that what they have at that point instructed or sanctioned will be delivered – with whatever changes and requirements necessary, by the people who have been entrusted to take control of it.

Neither a second referendum nor a General Election on standard Electoral Terms will deliver Brexit.

Nor will either bring the Country back together.

And bringing the Country together again must be as much a priority as resolving the Brexit question itself, in real tangible terms, collectively and once and for all.

A Binary choice through a 2-‘party’ General Election, where the candidates are not Political Parties or Individuals, but only identifiable as Representatives of Leave or Remain

The way that this could be achieved would be for Parliament to dissolve itself and for a General Election to be called where the normal Terms of the Representation of the People Act are suspended in respect of being open to all qualifying candidates and the only candidates allowed in each and every Parliamentary Constituency would be one representing Leave and one representing Remain.

All Party influence would be withheld, with all sitting MPs being entered as the de facto Candidate for their background choice of Leave or Remain. Their position qualified by their voting history and public activities, rather than being given a choice to go a different way.

To ensure parity between the two choices on the ballot paper, they would not be entered as a representative by name.

The process of defining their ‘party’ could if necessary be concluded by some form of independent judicial review, but would be transparent and fully published so that no reasoning for choices could be hidden from public view.

Of course this raises the question of who would be the candidate to oppose the ‘sitting MP’ if they should choose to fight the election.

How do you select an appropriate candidate to represent Leave or Remain?

Again, there are many suitable people who qualify to fill this void, whether Party Members or not. People who already have a track record of being out there and active in either direction – whether politicians or not, and capable of bringing something good to the table as a public representative and legislator if they should have the opportunity to be so called.

What we would have to ensure we did not do would be to allow anything other than impartial influence on the selection of any candidate. This would rule out any input from the existing Political Parties or any entity or organisation closely affiliated to them or any political cause.

The best thing for the Country would be for the Political Parties to be banned from being involved in Government for the term of this transition Government, and not allowed to exert any kind of influence on policy or procedure until the pathway to normal observance of the Representation of the People Act has been returned and on its way to being fully restored.

In the period before the Binary Choice Election itself, Government would through necessity to ensure impartiality be excluded from any form of involvement in the campaign.

An interim Government would need to be in place simply and only to ensure that Government is working up and only until the day after the Binary Choice Election when a Government of majority, tasked only with Leave (no deal) or Remain (the same) is in place and the necessary positions all appointed.

The Campaign itself could be conducted over a relatively short period once the decision has been made, as the otherwise necessary time windows for multiple candidacies would be kept out of the equation and keeping localised campaigning aligned with national campaigning would mean that localised manifestos would not be required – the importance of getting this whole mess sorted out overriding what the normal election of an MP should be about and used for.

A way forward that would work because it answers the questions for all involved

Yes, this may sound like being far from a workable solution and it is crude in its current and quickly written form.

But in the reality of our Brexit present, doing something which requires stepping outside of our comfort zones and thinking outside of the ‘tried and tested box’ either way is coming, and its result is not that far.

The choice in the coming days will now be whether we respect the principle of democracy and take the necessary steps to address the immediacy of the real problem in a format such as this, or whether a few MPs are allowed to create a de facto dictatorship where nobody can ultimately win and what are already the extremes in our society will be taken much further and way too far.

If our MPs are now so very sure of the integrity of the positions they have and are now taking on Brexit, going back to the people and being elected solely on the basis of what they truly believe and support is not something they should in any way fear.

This might be the only way that we can now find to more things forward legitimately and settle once and for all the question of what really is Leave and what is Remain, without being stuck in an indefinite time loop which is going to destroy everything that we hold dear as a Nation, is destined to erase our identity and everything that we have for centuries stood for, and is likely to guarantee chaos and a whole lot more.

image thanks to unknown

 

 

 

 

Our Parliament has a majority of modern-day quislings as MPs and they are about to engineer the biggest betrayal of them all

January 14, 2019 Leave a comment

img_2445As expected weeks and months ago, based on what has now become this Government’s oh-so-reliable behaviour patterns and pretty much guaranteed form, we today see Theresa May’s scare-game entering what some of us do hope will be its final death throws, but alas, probably just another stage before we see even more.

Back in the Autumn, there were many of us out here in the real world who still hoped that there were enough MPs left in this Parliament actually prepared to put duty the People above self-interest. Not just tell us that is what they will do.

Yet on the Eve of what may in time turn out to be one of the greatest Parliamentary decisions which has an impact right across the British way of life, it appears that the a baseline of doing what is actually right on behalf of the whole Electorate is now a quality and driver which is absent within the make-up of our MPs, save for what is clearly a remarkably small number and perhaps no more than just a few.

Perhaps the most frightening fact about all of the Machiavellian behaviour, manipulation and the flurry of ideas which are repeatedly being sold as the reinvention of the wheel – in so far as a ‘Brexit deal’ is concerned, is the reality that all this rubbish is having the effect of making Theresa May’s claim to have negotiated what the British People Voted for, look almost credible in a way which it would never do so, if such comparisons had never been born.

Yes, we should take very seriously the prospect that there is a strategy at work behind all of this. Because being bullied by fear as we were in the run up to the Referendum has been seriously overused by the Establishment and this Government, and it has required them to develop their web of deceit in order to make what is in effect one giant lie look highly plausible when compared to what appear to be all other forms.

What none of us should take seriously is the idea, suggestion or otherwise, that leaving the EU without ‘a deal’ is anything less than what the British People actually voted for. And that furthermore, that it will disadvantage the UK in anything other than the short and therefore immediate term – IF people should be put in charge who actually believe in the UK and what real opportunity is there to be used for.

Be under no illusion.

Theresa May’s ‘deal’ was, is not and never will be the Brexit that the British People Voted for.

This is a deal which if passed tomorrow or even in a few days or few weeks time will simply tie us back into a relationship which will always be one sided in terms of benefits to the EU. It is not ‘leaving’.

It is Brexit in name only with not even a meaningful tweak added since the point when anyone with any common sense realised that under May’s leadership, Brexit was never going to be the end result, no matter what she says or predicts as being yet to come.

But the ‘solutions’ put on offer by others, the ‘would be kings & queens’, such as Norway, Canada +++, Switzerland, the inappropriately named ‘People’s Vote’ or even a forced General Election offer nothing better in themselves. They do not even offer a direction of travel towards the position of UK Independence of the EU, whish is what the majority of British People instructed and therefore compelled our Parliament and successive Governments to deliver as the end result. To do whatever necessary to ensure that is what the UK becomes.

The relationship that these sell-out MPs and the Establishment has with the EU would perhaps be best viewed as one they would have as drunks with a pub landlord. One where the first sip of the drink tasted undeniably good, but then the damage being done took place without conscious intervention, both at the time they knew they were drinking and over the longer term when they didn’t realise they were.

The drinkers were blasé about the real impact as they got high in an unreal world that they were all the time paying for, whilst that landlord kept on supplying them with more.

The sensible drinker in such a pub would hear the inner voice when it says ‘it’s time to leave’, ‘let’s get away from here and go home’, ‘we need to get sober’, ‘we don’t need anymore’; leave promptly and behind them close the door.

But the Remainers instead stood up at the bar and demanded a deal to leave, something that the landlord was only too happy to oblige with, knowing well that as drunks the Remainers would voluntarily and willingly subjugate themselves, just so they could come back, get shitfaced all over again and then place themselves in a situation where they would just give away even more.

No, not many people see the truth in any of this. But that is why we use metaphors and especially so when we are far too close to reality to understand what’s going on around us, at a critical moment in our history when knowing the truth about what these so-called representatives of the people are actually doing on their own behalf is vital, because they are telling us and letting many of us believe that its for us all.

There is nothing beneficial for the UK or our People taking place in this Parliament.

The majority of our MPs are sold out either directly to the EU or indirectly via misplaced loyalty to the people who are leading them – and therefore all of us, over a very steep edge.

Whether deliberate or by accident, they are all modern-day quislings. They are aiding a foreign power in the guise of the EU to take control over us all, step-by-step, lie-by-lie, rule-by-rule. And they are content to do so as they believe that their roles in Parliament will continue to be assured, knowing that they are selling out their own People and over 300 years of Democracy in order to facilitate any policy that will allow them to do so.

Anything other than leaving the EU without a foolish and unnecessary ‘deal’ – no matter what steps are now taken to bring it about – will be a complete betrayal of the British People.

It is not what we the British People Voted for.

And from any Elected Representative, we have the right to expect a whole lot more.

 

images thanks to unknown/’Brick Top’ from the Film ‘Snatch’

Splitting the Conservative Party may soon be the only hope for Democracy in the UK

December 14, 2018 Leave a comment

The idea that a new political party will be the cure to all ills in politics is not a new one.

As I have written at length before, the way that the Electorate interacts with British Politics doesn’t lend itself well to what the Establishment portrays as outsiders. Unless that is there is an issue at work over which the Establishment does not have control.

We only need look to the rise and fall of UKIP and it’s inextricable link to the EU Referendum and then Brexit itself to understand what happens when the Establishment has dropped the ball – whether for good or bad.

For decades there has been an embedded form of monopoly in politics held between the Conservative and Labour Parties, with the Liberal Democrats and its previous forms being held up or utilised from their position which is mislabelled as being between.

Breaking open this racket has been all but impossible for what seem to be very simple, but nonetheless seemingly impossible challenges to answer. Many have tried. Some have had significant bank balances to enable them to do so. But even when UKIP gained around 4 Million votes in the last General Election, it was simply the case that there was no new parliamentary real estate for them to be found.

In as succinct terms as possible, there has existed an unwritten and assumed covenant between Electors and the Elected, which has benefitted this triumvirate mode.

The purpose and responsibility of being a representative of the people, both given and received at the ballot box was understood.

A reverence and trust for politicians has been the default standard for all politicians in the psyche of the Electorate.

That is unless there has been some big scandal, usually focused on the actions of an individual politician rather than the Party itself, and once removed, the default position would quickly be resumed.

All, that is, until the straw arrived that broke this heavily burdened camels back. A straw which came in the form of a decision being tossed back over to the Public, after which the Establishment simply assumed the status quo would be returned once more.

The problem with that decision, the decision for the UK to leave the EU had its genesis in the inference that this was a choice too big to be left to the delegated powers of our MP’s alone. For a decision with such implications, the Electorate itself would be trusted with the choice, and once that choice was made, their decision would be delivered and not returned – as that itself would bring into question what the very purpose of the Referendum had actually been for.

Overnight the lines of that once apparently straightforward interaction between the Public and Politicians was overturned. Instead of Voters who are typically Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or of a mind to sit on the borders located in between, there has emerged a new understanding and assessment of our Political Masters which rather than being fluid between 3 or maybe even more possibilities, has now become a binary choice – only presented as being many others and not least of all, the direction of either Leave or of Remain.

But as with everything that relates to the human condition, it is far from being even that simple and the options which relate to those choices are now unlikely to ever be viewed by voters as being anything like the same.

That choice itself when it comes to appointing the representatives of the people, is now between electing Politicians who represent only themselves, and electing Politicians who represent us all.

The dividing line is democracy itself.

Not party lines or any kind of political philosophy.

This is about the choice of our elected representatives being to work unquestionably for others, or working for oneself and the accumulation of position, status and wealth for personal gain plus more.

This dichotomy is not false. Politicians can only have one master. It’s the Electorate or their own ideas, party and dreams.

The insidious nature of this dynamic crosses across all of our Political Parties, but it is within the Conservative Party where the divide between the two principles has now become so very clear, that the change that many of us for so long have been advocating, may have finally found the right place and time to actually gain traction and the process of creating a new electable party which puts voters first in every sense and can command a majority wherever it runs, can finally begin.

No, I don’t for one minute think that the Tory Party will split whilst they seem to be in power, simply because until it is set in stone that the Party can no longer win anything in its current form, there remains a chance, albeit a very slim one, that sanity is restored and comes in the form of those who vote only for themselves recognising the change in the Electoral terrain and what its true purpose is for.

But when the point comes that the Conservative Party in May’s image hits the buffers – which if the current chaos and uncertainty continue it inevitably soon will, there will come a point where all the Conservative MP’s who make up the subsequent wreckage will have the opportunity to return true democracy to the UK once more.

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

 

 

 

TV Election debates are great if showmanship is the only standard set for Political leadership

September 17, 2018 Leave a comment

download (23)I’ve written about televised leaders debates before and I continue to have doubts about their validity, and whether it is even possible for them to be truly fair.

With talk of another General Elections becoming ever frequent, probably because of Labours obsession with finding a way to cause one, it comes as little surprise that somebody, somewhere is obsessing about how people will feel in a very specific, but what will be painted as being a wholly comprehensive way..

That looking to ‘big up’ a certain point of view is a process of little more than confirmation bias by people with the public ear is no great shock. But it is ironic that the subject matter here is the focus of the media, where a lot of the symptoms or effects causing upset amongst not only young people but the wider population too, was generated in the first place.

No, there’s nothing wrong with young people being in favour with television debates. In fact, I defy anyone to suggest other than it is what we can all safely expect.

After all, TV and all forms of media are now to many representative of the world we live in. From that perspective alone, we would be foolish to overlook the way that to so many people the world of politics is now perceived.

What happens is we all forget or overlook one massive and inescapable truth when when the infinitesimally small, pure, unadulterated level of fact provided through these mediums is acknowledged and put to one side.

Every other bit of content on the news, on TV, on the internet and on social media isn’t real. Its words. Opinion. Spin. Someone else’s way of interpreting events in the world. It’s the way that other people want us all to see AND interpret what is going on around us. And even then what they say and what we hear may be very different things.

We have created the illusion of all illusions. Instead of measuring our life decisions with the facts hidden below the surface of this pretend veil, we are mistaking illusion for fact. We have fallen in to the trap of creating a parallel universe where nothing really exists except the many perceptions that we have differently as individuals. Perceptions that we experience as genuine which are misleading is about everything.

No, I do not blame young people or anyone living a normal life outside the bubble where this is all created for the misunderstanding, the frustration and yes, the injustice which sits in between. I don’t even blame those creating the problem from within it, because these are people who are so clearly lost from the impact and consequence of what they are doing, that they cannot really have any idea of what it all means.

The biggest problem in amongst all of this is that our political classes do not see the reality of what is going on and what this all really is. Despite it not being unreasonable that we should be able to expect all those holding elected office to be savvy enough to see the wood for the trees AND act upon it, they have become obsessed with making all this noise real. They simply overlook the responsibilities that they have to us all and obsess about what looks good when it is presented to us

Watch Politicians on Twitter. Observe them on Facebook. But above all take note of how little sense any of their answers or statements really make when they are asked reasonable question about the work they are supposed to be doing for you.

Our political classes have become so obsessed with playing up to what they think people think, rather than doing the job they are supposed to do, that it really comes as no surprise that things have got as bad as they really are for us all. This is wrong.

The establishment didn’t see Brexit coming. Many of the Politicians belonging to it are still convinced that everyone outside Westminster and London actually wants to remain. They certainly haven’t got any real idea of what it is to be a normal person trying to make ends meet, or to be a young person struggling with the prospect of taking on a lifelong debt to obtain what will probably be useless qualifications before their adult life even begins.

So if we focus only on how a Politician or would-be Prime Minister performs on TV or all the other forms of media, we are overlooking a great many things.

Yes, good media performance is important for Politicians. But it is only just the cherry on a very large metaphorical cake. It’s not even the icing, or the most important part, the middle, which itself needs to contain real quality ingredients. All in one what should really be a many great things.

None of this can really be seen within a televised debate forum. Seeing is believing only if you believe the idea that the camera never lies. And if any of us use this example of judging the suitably of a prime ministerial candidate and the substance of the Political Party that backs them, we should not be surprised when the results are policies which only inflict pain within our lives, because the illusion of credibility that being on a screen gives then wins.

 

image thanks to independent.co.uk

A General Election by New Year just became a lot more likely and it’s time for May to accept that the battles ahead are no longer hers to win

September 14, 2018 Leave a comment

VOTE 18Emily Thornberry’s announcement that Labour will oppose Theresa May’s Chequers Policy today should really come as little surprise.

In fact, it’s not in the least bit unexpected.

Labour’s recent mantra has after all been based on nothing more than attempting to force a General Election as quickly as it is possible to do.

As a lapsed Tory, disenfranchised by the current interpretation of conservatism emanating from No.10, I gain no pleasure from the prospect that Theresa May could prove to be the last Tory Prime Minister before anything remotely recognisable as an attempt at government for all in the UK is painfully left behind.

Yet that is exactly the fate that surely awaits us all, if some form of sense and reason doesn’t land in Downing Street very soon.

The reality must be accepted at Cabinet level that the charade which is Chequers is not only dead in the Channel, but that the dying embers of credible politics in the UK now require a Conservative leader who can win a working majority against what should otherwise be an unelectable opposition which should only ever be capable of having pipe dreams about being in government.

Today, Corbyn’s left is gaining confidence with dangerously quixotic policies that are now looming as large as the void in leadership which has left us all ineptly exposed against EU negotiators, whilst conjuring up the Chequers plan to remain.

But in Downing Street, the penny hasn’t dropped.

Emboldened by the phoney zone of safety in which the 2017 General Election result left the Prime Minister seemingly unexposed, May’s misplaced confidence in her position and influence could all-too-easily lead her to call a General Election under immense pressure, rather than  stepping aside before the watershed vote is taken on the final Brexit plan.

We should be under no illusion that this quickly approaching vote is almost certainly now set to yield the result that could immediately lead to the opportunity which Labour currently craves so badly.

A Conservative, as passionate about Leaving the EU as they are about bringing all sides together as we go forward must be allowed to take the helm of this Government before it is too late.

The change must happen now.

The likelihood of a vote on the final pre-Brexit Day position being won by any Conservative Government with the Parliamentary Seats they hold today and the current make-up of Leave and Remain supporting MP’s amongst their number would at any time be all but impossible.

It won’t matter if it’s ‘Chequers’ or something prepared by the ERG that MP’s are called to vote on. There is simply too much self interest in Parliament to allow the right decision to be made and deliver upon the democratic instruction which was given by a majority of voters on behalf of us all.

Forced or voluntarily called, a General Election is now likely to be the only way to deliver the Brexit that the Electorate require.

It is now up to May to decide if she wants to help a Conservative Government see the result of the real peoples vote through.

%d bloggers like this: