Tag Archives: Theresa May

Cabinet government disintegrates

Not so long ago, a Secretary of State publicly promulgating policy diametrically opposed to that articulated by a Prime Minister would have been immediately sacked.

Theresa May repeated stated that her policy was to oppose the notion of a second referendum on the EU issue, as in (for example) her statement that
“There has not yet been enough recognition of the way that a second referendum could damage social cohesion by undermining faith in our democracy” .

This is unambiguous. It was thus a surprise to Grumpy that perhaps the most senior of all Cabinet members, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, went on record this week as saying that a second referendum “deserves to be considered”.

Read that again – the Chancellor is actively giving tacit acceptance to an action which the Prime Minister has repeated claimed would damage both social cohesion and democracy.

Parliamentary government in the UK has now broken down. The Westminster TV channel is now more watchable than most of the now tired soaps, with intrigue, double dealing, the traducing centuries of tradition, and twists and turns that are hard to predict. The only element missing to make it an unmissable hit is the absence of surreptitious sex on the back row of the green benches – my suggestion would be rumpy pumpy between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg – come on, Anna !!

The country is coming apart, the whatever now happen with Brexit, it will end in tears, public disdain in politicians and damaging ploarisation in the electorate for years to come.

April reminder

After the unprecedented and extraordinary events in the House of Commons in the last few weeks, it was hard to keep track of what Brexit may or may not be. As a ‘backstop’ (intended use of words) consider the Conservative manifesto 2017. Mrs May had made her view of Brexit unambiguously clear at that point (via the Lancaster House speech) so voters could reject that approach at the time of the election – this WAS the second referendum on Brit.

Here are some excerpts from the two referenced texts.

  • “So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country. Because we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws. “
  • “But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market.   … a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. “
  • “But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver. “
  • “So we do not seek membership of the single market … And because we will no longer be members of the single market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to the EU budget. “
  • “A Global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too …  And I want Britain to be free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation, meaning we can reach new trade agreements not just with the European Union but with old friends and new allies from outside Europe too. “

How can anyone not have been clear about the intended goals of Brexit ? Those goals had implications, which have been becoming apparent as the agreements progressed, but they were NEVER to be part of the Customs Union or the Single Market.

Those in parliament seeking to sabotage Brexit – as defined by Mrs May and clear to all since January 2017 – could never be satisfied by any way by the targets she set herself. Grumpy’s off expressed irritation about Mrs May has never been about her policies ; rather it has been about her abject failure to deliver an agreement which was in accord with the very goals she set herself.

May has failed

Recently, Grumpy wrote a post which contained mostly quotes from Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech, clearly setting our her goals for Brexit. (See  Lancaster House tests )

The fact is, that no matter which way it is spun, whatever obfuscations are used, or however impassioned the speeches about ‘no other choice’ are, May has abjectly failed to deliver every goal she so clearly set out in that speech.

  • “take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain” –  FAILED
  • “to strike the best trade deals around the world” (meaning not being in a customs union – her words) – FAILED
  • “protecting the common resources of our islands” (meaning being on control of our fishing waters – her words)  – FAILED
  • “free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation” – FAILED
  • “not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory” (meaning having a time limit in the backstop – her words) – FAILED
  • “want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded”  – make a mark on your calendar WILL FAIL.

The “national interest” threat should not cause leave MP’s to capitulate –  this agreement should be rejected.

The May Tests

Is the end in sight ?

Theresa May has been receiving pressure because of her failure to implement Brexit properly . People should wait and judge her against her own words from Lancaster House; if she delivers an agreement which meets her own  stated criteria, it will be a success, and she can take a bow. We’ll see – tick or cross these off when the final deal is announced.

” take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.”  (This is a yes or no – it’s done or not)

“empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world” (This means we are not in some form of customs union)

“protecting the common resources of our islands” (We can determine our own fishing policy and exclude the French if we so choose)

“What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market” (This is a yes or no)

“free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation” (A simple test here)

“not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory” (This means any backstop has to be time limited)

“want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded” (Make a mark on your calendar)