CatoTheYounger (@catoletters) tweeted: Practical politics consist in ignoring facts ~ Henry Brooks Adams; to which I replied: Er, not quite true. Politics consists of ignoring facts: think Brexit. If politics did not do that then it would be practical.
There have been many comments that the United Kingdom will need an interim deal as negotiations to hammer out a free trade agreement will take far longer than the initial two-year period mentioned in Article 50.
Such an ‘interim deal’ was available and all it required was an application to rejoin EFTA and the EEA. Instead the UK is ‘lumbered’ with the ridiculous alternative that Theresa May has concocted, one no doubt aided and abetted by the all-knowing (not) of Davis and Fox. Having ruled out the EFTA/EEA’ interim deal’ and failing to get the free trade agreement within the timescale permitted, one of only two alternatives available to trade with the EU would be on WTO terms – terms which are not as good as EFTA/EEA. The other alternative is that the EU will devise some form of associate membership which will certainly mean that the referendum was a waste of public money as we would still be subject to all the laws of the EU and decisions of the ECJ – again, terms not as good as membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Then there are some who are of the opinion that there is no ‘divorce-bill’ payable, that we should walk away and at the same time give the EU that well-known ‘Churchill-sign’ of defiance – and then wait for the EU to come crawling to the UK for a trade deal, which in my humble opinion, ain’t gonna happen.
It should be remembered that any negotiation requires compromise, if only for the reason that in such a process no-one gets all that they want. It is well-known that for any negotiation to succeed both sides must strip out the emotion, which invariably is involved and just deal with facts. In chasing their fantasy plan the British Government is allowing emotion to cloud their reasoning with the result that they fail to realise it is the EU which sets the rules of departure; and that is the first compromise Theresa May and her cohorts need to accept.
Also, unfortunately for us, our media does not deal in facts, they much prefer emotional angles – witness the ‘new’ Gibraltar question, one which they appear hell-bent on magnifying out of all proportion when compared to Brexit in its entirety. As an aside and on this point, instead of indulging in the realms of comparison with the Falklands and Thatcher coupled with a possible war with Spain – both suggested by Michael Howard – they could have done a little research and suggested Spain should remember Cueta – which would have calmed things down no end (According to Wikipedia: On 1 January 1668 by the Treaty of Lisbon (Lisbon has much for which to answer!), King Afonso VI of Portugal recognized the formal allegiance of Ceuta to Spain and formally ceded Ceuta to King Carlos II of Spain [and] When Spain recognized the independence of Spanish Morocco in 1956, Ceuta remained under Spanish rule as Spain considered them integral parts of the Spanish state, but Morocco has disputed this point.
Thomas Sowell is reputed to have said: Too many political ‘solutions’ are solutions to problems created by previous political ‘solutions’. Where our membership of the EU is concerned, Sowell’s statement is only too true, in that we were lied to in 1972, we were lied to in 1975; and we most definitely were lied to in 2016; and during those years decisions were taken by UK governments which have only exacerbated the mess in which we now find ourselves. The British people having spoken on 23rd June last year, it is a tad ironic that it will not be them who pass judgment on whatever ‘deal’ with which Theresa May returns but a group of people, the majority of whom wished to remain within the EU. At which point one can only question if ‘democracy’ is working.
It is a matter of continual amazement to me, at least, that our politicians have not realized that the EU is but a ‘middleman’ where ‘standards’ are concerned. It has been noted that 80% of all ‘EU law’ is set by United Nations bodies and that UNECE could easily become the ‘standard-setting’ body for Europe (eureferendum.com – then click on The Market Solution in the sidebar – pp22-25 refers). With this ‘alternative’ method; who needs the EU?
It is a known fact that the EU’s intention is to ‘kill’ ‘nation states’ and make them subservient to a United States of Europe, something which, for the reason of ‘nationalism’, seems for the EU an ‘uphill battle’. Were the United Kingdom to rejoin EFTA and the EEA it would seem they would soon build a coalition – especially with the potential of other member states who may well wish to join and thus preserve their ‘nationalism’ – which would surely hasten the demise of the EU.
It has to be said that the foregoing in respect of coalescing around UNECE is but wishful thinking – especially while we, the people, are subjected to democratised dictatorship as encapsulated by a system of democracy known as representative democracy. Regular readers of this blog will be only too aware that I continually write about breaking the stranglehold representative democracy has on what are supposed to be the free people it purports to represent – but doesn’t.
When – and how long is when is probably too long for their own good – will the people realise that the whole aim of politics is to keep them alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with a series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. (HL Mencken – although I paraphrase). That is how dictatorships work – and that is how dictatorial democracies work. Different names, but the same modus operandi based on ‘them’ and ‘us’.
Some of the so-called eurosceptics call the EU a ‘cosy club’ and reckon it is time it was ‘taken down’. I think politics today is also a ‘cosy club’ and that it is time it was ‘taken down’. After all, the United Kingdom is our ‘body’; and while some look upon representative democracy as benign – it is far from that. It is malignant and as such is not self-limited in its growth. It is capable of invading (and does) spread into adjacent tissues and on to distant tissues of our society. This ‘cancerous tumour’ must be removed before it becomes inoperable – or we, as a nation, will surely die.