If only…

 …I’d been for a hearing test. I thought I heard on tonight’s news that the UK is sending 250 police officers to Paris to assist the French in managing their Olympics. Can this be true? We can’t get the French to lift a finger to stem the tide of migrants risking their lives to cross the Channel, but we are at the front of the queue to help them. We have to stop this. 

Irreconcilable differences

Why is it that we are at such an impasse? The issue dividing us seems simple so why can’t it be easily resolved so that Brexit can happen in a way that all find acceptable, even if not perfect?

To answer this one has to understand the fundamental difference in the way in which the EU and the UK agree things. Look at any EU Treaty or Directive and you will be struck by the length and detail of the preamble. Conversely, look at any piece of UK legislation and you will see nothing remotely similar. Europeans believe it is essential to set out the purpose and intent of what is to follow so that if there is any subsequent disagreement about the words, the intent will guide the judges.

The UK sees things very differently. The devil is in the detail, as we often say, and if there is any argument after the event, our courts scrutinise the words rather than what the intention may have been. If Parliament hasn’t been able to articulate its intent, tough; the language is the key.

English is, perhaps, the problem. We have lots of words that are confusingly similar. Many that sound very different in fact mean the same thing; others that sound the same mean something very different. No wonder we pin so much importance to the language.

Continental Europe is very different. Fewer words and less potential confusion means that slavish reliance on specific language is considered unsafe hence the need for lengthy expressions of intent to clarify any linguist defects.

It should therefore be no surprise that the backstop provision is seen so differently by each side. We interpret the language strictly; it could last forever so it probably will. The EU takes the commitment to negotiate a trade agreement as an absolute commitment and regards the backstop as unlikely and unimportant.

As we have often said, “Vive la difference”. But maybe at this stage the difference is the difficulty.

Dear MP.....

Dear Mr Zahawi,

The Prime Minister has encouraged all constituents to let their MPs know what they think about the proposed agreement to withdraw from the EU, ahead of the Parliamentary vote. As a resident of Great Alne (and a former member of the Conservative Party who voted for you in 2017!), I’m happy to let you know how I feel.

Let me start by confessing that in the 2016 Referendum I voted leave. I wasn’t much concerned about immigration (I’ve always thought we had much more control than people admitted), and didn’t have any deep rooted issues about the influence of the EU Parliament and the ECJ over the UK. I reasoned that the French, Spanish and Italians, to name only three, had worked out how to ‘cherry pick’ what they were prepared to accept and what they intended to ignore, and thought that one day we would learn to do the same.

I had become increasingly irritated by the EU Commission’s talent for wasting money, the monthly gravy train from Brussels to Strasbourg, and the lack of transparent auditing. But even these were things I could, reluctantly, accept as the price for being part of a powerful trading group of nations.

So I really should have been a Remainer. And the truth is that I was torn between the two options. Ultimately I voted leave because I think all the indicators point to the likely collapse of the EU and I reasoned it was best not to be in it when it implodes. If we could save some money every year and work up some alternative relationships in the meantime, so much the better. The important point for me was divorcing ourselves from what I saw as an increasingly unstable organisation which would eventually fracture under its own bloated bureaucracy.

When I voted to leave I knew what I was voting for: a full and complete exit from the EU and all its machinery including the customs union and the single market. I read Article 50 and understood what it said and what the consequence would be of triggering it. We would leave the EU two years thereafter and might, during that notice period, reach an agreement on a future trading arrangement with the EU. I am not at all convinced that we have to have a ‘deal’ in order to leave (Article 50(2) accepts that there may be no withdrawal agreement), nor that we have any legal obligation to make any payment as a condition of withdrawing. But if a sensible trade deal was on offer I would be happy to pay for it, within reason.

But I definitely did not vote for what is now on offer. I cannot understand how our PM can believe that what she has negotiated is good or even acceptable. We will be stuck in a continuing, one-way, relationship with the EU with no ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries nor any guarantee of a free trade agreement with the EU (political declarations are impossible to enforce), and unable to get out of this ridiculous relationship without the EU’s agreement. And we’re going to pay £39bn for this? Unbelievable.

I would urge you to vote against the PM’s deal and allow us to leave the EU with no deal, trading instead under WTO rules and making no payment. There will be some short term pain and disruption, but that will be worse for the other 27 than it will be for us, and the medium term benefits will outweigh these. I have read as many of the arguments for and against this route as I can and I have come firmly to the conclusion that it is the best option for our Country. You and your fellow MPs have but one chance to get this right. Support the deal and you will be condemning this Country to a miserable, uncontrollable, future. Vote it down and we can create a bright and prosperous future and avoid being tied to a collapsing monolith.

I am disappointed in our PM. Strong mindedness and perseverance are important qualities in a leader; obstinacy and an inability to listen are not.

Yours sincerely,

Robust words from Mr Cameron this morning. Brexit increases European instability and the chance of a European war in times to come. Strong stuff!

Whether you believe him or not, you have to wonder why, if life outside the EU is so uncertain and fraught with danger, our government has called a referendum at all. Seems downright irresponsible to risk such a dangerous outcome.

Unless, of course, it isn't really what he thinks........?

I'm continually surprised (and disappointed) that the Remain lobby perpetuates the notion that the UK outside the EU would only be able to negotiate trading arrangements with the EU that are equivalent to those 'enjoyed' by Norway and Switzerland. There is no logic to this. If an independent nation State, with 60m+ consumers, the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world, and a key member of NATO and the UN, knocked on the Commision's door and said 'let's trade', are we really expected to believe that the response would be 'only if you agree to what the Swiss have agreed'? I don't think so. There would be some tough negotiating and I doubt that the road to an agreement would be smooth, but let's be realistic. In or out, the EU needs the UK as much as if not more than we need it. This is not about economics; it's about self determination and sovereignty. Time to lay the myths to rest and concentrate on the real debate,

I read this in the Daily Telegraph this morning:

Can this really be true? Is it possible for 30 million people to pay no income tax at all whilst 1% of that number shoulder 25% of the Nation's income tax burden? If it is then we need to be very worried as something tells me the 1% may decide to up sticks and put down roots in a jurisdiction where the tax burden is more evenly spread.

Dear Mr President,

Do the following words ring any bells?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuse and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

Your forebears fought a war on these ideals and they hold as true today as they did then. Add Lord Acton's observation that: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority", and you will come closer to understanding why there is a groundswell of opinion across the EU that the experiment is failing and that the concept of creepingly oppressive, unelected and unaccountable government must be removed.