The Right Honourable Theresa May said that she would quit if her deal was passed by the Commons. Shouldn’t she have announced her resignation if her deal WAS NOT PASSED by the Commons? If it had been passed, then surely after all the endless meetings with the 1922 Committee (for that is the year they live in), the European Research Group (who do not want to be European and do not research anything), with the DUP, with the Devil’s Unelected Advocates in Brussels, she would want to see the process through to the bitter, trainwreck end? A very strange decision; to do all the brain-frazzling donkey work to get the deal passed, only for someone else to take over and grab all the glory. There again, is it any stranger than triggering Article 50 when she did not have a clue as to the terms of a leaving deal; thereby giving all the negotiating ammunition to the EU? All the flak is being aimed at the UK, but the EU must bear its share of the blame. Regardless of all the Backstop blah blah, what right does the EU have to dictate what type of border can exist between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland when the UK will no longer be a member of the EU? That is like telling Poland what kind of border it must have with the Republic of Belarus. Furthermore, there HAS to be some measure of control that a country can exert on the amount of people coming to live in it. Yes, the existing EU countries needed people to fuel the workforce, but it’s simply ludicrous that 5 or 10 million EU citizens can go and live in another member state of the EU at a stroke. How could that country possibly deal with the influx of so many? Regardless of whether there is space, housing, jobs, etc. available, a tidal wave of immigration causes disruptions in the social fabric of society. It’s simple human nature to be resentful of this.
So now what? The deal was defeated again so we must assume that the lady is not for turning. She has just announced that she will ask for another extension until the 12th of May….might as well be the 12th of Never.
Will there be a leadership contest? Doubtful, but the runners and riders are already being bet on. Michael Gove, a likely candidate for the top slot, replied to a question about being a contender in 2012: “I’m constitutionally incapable of it. There’s a special extra quality you need that is indefinable, and I know I don’t have it. There’s an equanimity, an impermeability and a courage that you need. There are some things in life you know it’s better not to try.” Well, Michael, you did try. Maybe Gove genuinely meant what he said, but when the opportunity came, he turned into Bestial Bilbo Baggins as he sees the Ring around Frodo’s neck.
Another obvious favourite (wearing blinkers) is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. A lovely little twist in all this is that Gove worked on the Channel 4 programme ‘A Stab in the Dark’; Boris Johnson will know all about that after he played Caesar to Gove’s Brutus on the day the latter was due to announce his candidacy; only in the case of Boris, the stab was in broad daylight.
Mr. Pfeffel (why on earth doesn’t he use this wonderful surname?) is very modest and self-deprecating. His paternal grandmother, Yvonne Eileen Williams (also known as ‘Granny Butter’), was a descendant of Prince Paul von Württemberg, who was a direct descendant of George II, meaning that Boisterous Boris is a relative of the Royal Family and, therefore, part of the club of inter-married royals of Europe who, as we all know, are really either alien lizards or barking mad.
When told about his regal lineage, Boris said: “If you had told me that I was related to George II, I would have thought that you were absolutely crackers – not even Granny Butter could have come up with that one.” Oh come on Boris, you big, tousle-haired fibber! I’m sure you had your valet research your family tree before you could even walk.
Returning (inexorably) to Brexit, Sir Anthony Seldon, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham and all-round clever bod, said: “The real essence of the problem is that the country voted to leave, but only just – another day it could have gone the other way.
“But these people here in Parliament predominantly want to stay.
“So is Britain a popular democracy, where the people decide the future, or is it these guys here, who are the representatives of the people who voted in general elections? And that’s really the nub of the problem.”
Actually, Sir Ant, that’s the conundrum of the nub of the problem. Why elect representatives of the people to make wise and knowledgable decisions if you’re simply going to ask the unwise and unknowledgeable masses to decide on something as crucially important as the UK leaving the EU? The Right Honourable members feel obliged to honour the results of a referendum even though they know full well that too many people voted for 350 million quid more for the NHS or for ‘independence’, which sounds wonderful but it’s doubtful whether, say, most Zimbabweans would tell you that they were better off since gaining theirs. You can’t pay for things with independence or sovereignty.
If Brexit has done nothing else, it has at least made the electorate more aware of what goes on in the House of Commons and, that awareness has caused a deep mistrust of the political scheming and double-dealing, based upon toeing the party line. MPs are supposedly elected to represent their constituents but that is blatantly not the case, otherwise they would not be whipped into obediance. Essentially, political parties are an anathema to true democracy – so why have them? Would it spoil some vast, eternal plan to abolish them? Some would argue that it would ‘hamstring’ the Commons, leaving it too disjointed to be able to make decisions, but that is exactly what has happened in the Commons over Brexit. Imagine it; an assembly made up of representatives with no allegiances or affiliations to a political party, free to follow the wishes of their constituents and their own experience, wisdom and expertise.
“The UK is facing an uncertain future” No, it isn’t! It’s exactly the opposite. The future of the UK is very certain – its break-up, and the House of Commons is making that happen by its myopic political manouevring and refusal to agree on anything. However, would breaking up the UK be a bad thing? By the same rationale as the UK would be better off by leaving the EU, then surely England would be better off by leaving the UK. The only thorny issue would be North Sea oil, but the Angles could come to an amicable, profit-sharing arrangement with the Scots. So, hold a referendum on leaving; what a juicy prospect, eh? Some non-Plaid Cymruites might object, but Wales could join the EU and get lots of lovely subsidies. I daresay that no PM would ever, EVER consider holding a referendum again, but with the referendum genie out of the bottle, it may not want to go back. Freedom is contagious.
Brexit has caused chaos, it has created deep divisions in society…so? Out of chaos comes order and this is a chance to take a cold, hard look at Parliament and the whole democratic and electoral system in the country. I mean, for heaven’s sake, there isn’t even enough space in the chamber for all the MPs to sit down! Traditions are fine, but they only have a certain shelf-life. The House of Lords has been labelled an anachronism in our modern, democratic age; well, the House of Commons is increasingly looking like a contender for that category. The founder of the Venus Project, Jacque Fresco, argued all his long life that it’s the experts who should be running the show; scientists in the main. They know what they’re talking about; do MPs? Taking the example of Michael Gove, he is the current Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Prior to this, he was Secretary of State for Justice and before that Secretary of State for Education. Notice a pattern? I don’t. Ministers flit from one department to another, proving that they are not experts in any field in particular apart from politics. They administer money; they receive it and they spend it. Some MPs say a no-deal is best, some say a customs union, some not to leave at all; they can’t all be right. Let’s have a study (as independent as is can be) on the question of membership, setting out the pros and cons and the likely effects of all the options available for leaving or staying. Present the findings to the people and let them vote on each, with the government implementing the decision. If it takes a year and the UK has to participate in the EU Parliament elections, then so be it. This is preferable to leaving the EU based on ignorance and biased opinions. Farage and others will cry “Betrayal!!” for sure, but ruining the economy and, along with it, the lives of millions of citizens unnecessarily, seems to me to be the ultimate betrayal.
Minority News Report 