When they say “Divisive”…

One of the words that has been bandied around a lot lately has been “divisive”.

We have all heard it, usually on the BBC from unreconciled Remain votes or from grumpy Hilary Clinton supporters. We are supposed to believe that there was something uniquely “divisive” about the decision to leave the European Union. Or, in the American context, something unbelievably “divisive” about the decision to put Donald Trump into the White House.

Note that the cry went up from the losers in both these nationwide votes long before anything had actually happened. Brexit was “divisive” before Article 50 has been triggered, let alone Britain actually leaving the EU. Similarly, Trump’s victory was “divisive” before he even got to the White House, never mind actually did anything with his new found power.

So, I’ve been thinking about these outcries from the defeated. Is Brexit really divisive? No, I don’t think that it is. So why all the talk about Britain becoming more divided?

I think that there are two things going on here.

First, it might be that some of the losers are seeking to undermine the Brexit victory (and probably the Trump victory too). By painting the decision as utterly disastrous even before it has taken effect, those who have not accepted the decision hope that they can overturn it at some point in the future.

But there is something else. Look at the people who are talking about Brexit being divisive. These are almost without exception the gilded élite. Those who went to good schools, effortlessly slipped into well paid jobs and now live in nice houses in nice neighbourhoods with nice social circles. They tend support a multi-cultural society, support decarbonisation to fight climate change and back the whole host of soft-left doctrines.

By and large these people have had their way in politics and in society all their lives. They like multi-culturalism and large scale immigration and bask in the advantages it brings, without having to put up with their children being elbowed out of the local school due to high demand for places. They can smugly impose decarbonisation policies secure in the knowledge that they can afford the higher fuel bills that they bring.

And now, just for once, they have not got their way. The great unwashed have risen up and rejected the European Union – another of the unquestioned shibboleths of the soft-left.

How awful. How shocking. How “divisive”.

Our friends from the gilded élite have, probably for the first time in their lives, realised that not everyone agrees with them. For the first time in their lives they have not got their way on one of the big issues in life.

I pray fervently that it will not be the last time.

 

When you don’t understand the question

In the run up to Christmas I went to quite a few parties and social events. I do not mention this to boast about my social life, but because I ran into quite a few Remainers – some were old acquaintances I had not seen for a while, others were new to me. It was an illuminating experience.

Most of them were friendly – one was not, but then I never liked her very much anyway – and the majority accepted that they had lost. Quite a few had voted Remain only because they had been influenced by the speeches by the great and the good, others because they liked going on holiday to Europe, some because they backed the status quo. They had moved on and accepted that Brexit would happen. A few had voted Remain simply because most of the people they knew were voting Remain.

But the ones I found most interesting to talk to were those who had been vociferous Remainers and still believed that Britain should remain in the EU. And especially entertaining were those who did not know that I had spent the campaign working as Campaigns Manager for Better Off Out.

The conversations often revolved around the fact that Leave voters “believed lies”, or rather less politely “were ignorant” or “stupid”. We’ve all heard these unpleasant slanders, but I took the opportunity to probe further. What seemed to be behind these comments were that the Remainers I was talking to felt that the Leave voters had not understood the question posed in the Referendum.

These folks were keen to talk to me about the “real issues” at stake. Each person had their own take on these, but they tended to be variations on the economic issue. They were concerned with trade with the EU. A few of them actually worked for companies that did business in the EU, but most did not. They seem to have bought the line that you need to be in the EU to trade with the EU. They were worried about the economy or jobs. Despite the lack of any economic downturn since 23 June, they were convinced that disaster would strike soon. They felt that leaving the EU was economic suicide. People who voted to leave had, apparently, not understood the economic issues at stake.

They were keen to tell me that the Brexiteers had not understood the question.

But actually, it was my party-going friends who had not understood. The ballot paper asked us if we wanted Britain to be a member of the European Union. It did not ask us if we want to buy cars from Germany, nor if we wanted to sell pizza to Italy (I jest not, I know one company that does).

Of course, trade with the EU will be affected by the terms of whatever trade deal emerges from talks with the EU. But for me at least such issues were unimportant.

Essentially the question on the ballot paper was a constitutional one. Should the UK be an independent sovereign country or a member state of the European Union?

When a Remainer says that Leavers were “ignorant” or “stupid” or “did not understand”, what they really mean is that the leavers did not agree that economics were of prime concern. They are concerned about the money, the cash, the lucre. Not that they would ever admit to anything so vulgar, of course. They talk about the economy, the jobs, the exports, but their concerns always boil down to money.

And money was not on the ballot paper. Freedom and independence was.

Next time a Remainer tells you that Leavers were “stupid”, you know who is really showing their ignorance.

All the King’s horses…..

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men 

Couldn’t put Humpty together again

As 2016 draws to a close, it is ending on a note that few of us could have dared imagine a year ago.

For a start, most informed opinion did not expect any referendum until 2017. David Cameron was widely expected to use the UK’s Presidency of the European Council, originally scheduled for the second half of next year, as a chance to showcase the EU and thus maximise the chances of a remain vote. In the event, he presumably decided that waiting nearly 18 months gave the leave side a bit too long to get its act together. Instead, he decided to cut and run, counting on the disorganisation and in-fighting among the leave groups, the lack of an agreed exit strategy, the full machinery of the government and civil service being at his disposal and the well-documented habit of electorates worldwide endorsing the status quo in referendums.

Thankfully, his gamble backfired and we woke on June 24th – at least, those of us who had been able to sleep – to the wonderful news that the UK had voted to leave, with a majority of over one million. For many of us, it was a result for which we had been striving for years if not decades. It had meant four months of total commitment, putting anything resembling a normal life on hold – indeed, some of us are still catching up with the legacy of the manic lives we were forced to lead in order to secure our goal – but it was worth it.

Of course, we’re not out yet and Article 50 has yet to be triggered. We do not know the Government’s negotiating strategy and much debate in the media has been little more than running round in circles with serious analysis very much at a premium.

However, we can be confident that the formal process of leaving the EU will begin in the first months of 2017. There are some very vocal and extremely prominent remainiacs who are clearly unhappy about this, but we believe that our analysis that Parliament will not obstruct the will of the people will prove correct. A recent poll confirms that six months on, voters stand by their decision.

Andrew Hawkins, the chairman of ComRes who commissioned the poll, was pretty blunt in his analysis of the result. “This poll should serve as a warning to Remain campaigners who want to force a second referendum that the clock cannot be turned back without risking a huge public backlash. Most of the public think the June result should stand and even some 17% of those who believe their personal finances will worsen post-Brexit would still vote to Leave,” he said.

Perhaps the big surprise for some of us has been the attitude of the EU. After the initial shock of a result few in Brussels were expecting, the prevailing mindset seems to be that we must make our departure ASAP. No serious attempt to get us to change our mind; the main objective being to cauterise the wound and to prevent the infection spreading to other member states.

This point cannot be overstated. Whatever the machinations of Gina Miller, Richard Branson or Tony Blair, a massive blow has been struck. Like Humpty Dumpty, the EU project took a massive fall on June 23rd and even before the Brexit negotiations begin, the damage to its reputation caused by one country voting to leave is immense and irreversible. The creation of regional superstates like the EU looked like the way forward which everyone sooner or later would have to accept. A few years back, I recall listening to an interview with a number of Swiss voters who all greatly valued their democratic system which they all viewed as vastly superior to EU membership. “But how long can it last?” I recall one of them saying – the implication being that inevitably, one day or other, Switzerland would have to give it all up and join the EU.

Brexit has dealt that sense of inevitability a body blow. What was seen as a one-way street where the only choice you were given was the speed at which you progressed along it now seems to be open to traffic in both directions. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men – in other words, King Jean-Claude and his acolytes in Berlin, Paris and indeed Washington – cannot sell the European Project with the same authority and confidence as before. Even before the Brexit vote, Aleksander Vucic, the Serbian Prime Minister said that EU membership is no longer the “big dream it was in the past…. The EU that all of us are aspiring to, it has lost its magic power.” The same article also quoted Bohuslav Soboktka, the current Czech Prime Minister who faces a challenge from an even more Eurosceptic challenger in elections next year, who claimed that his country may follow the UK through the exit door,

Furthermore, the election of Donald Trump to the White House will do nothing to restore the EU’s tarnished brand. From the 1950s onwards, the US – and the CIA in particular has been one of the main motors driving the European project forward, albeit sometimes covertly as far as its relationship with the UK was concerned. Now America will soon have a president who has compared his own election victory with the Brexit vote and who has consistently spoken very positively about our decision to leave the EU.

All in all, a much better outlook than we could have imagined this time a year ago. The recent claim by the President of the National Union of Students that Brexit would be “a catastrophe for our generation” is just plain silly. We face a bright future and it is the young who will be the long-term beneficiaries. On 23rd June, we finally lanced the boil that has poisoned our country for over 40 years and young people should be grateful that this long-standing problem has not been bequeathed to them to sort out.

On this note, we wish you a very Happy Christmas and look forward to seeing the beginning of our formal departure from the EU in the New Year.

Overturning Referendums – it’s the European way.

Sometimes I don’t know how they do it, these politicians. They stand there with straight faces and say things that are not true. They know they are not true, we know that they are not true. And yet still they expect us to believe what they are saying.

Just recently we have seen a great deal of this. One after another pro-EU politicians have queued up to tell us that they are now reformed characters and that they have no intention at all of trying to keep the UK inside the EU. Oh no, of course not.

“There is no serious chance that the House of Lords will block Article 50” Yvette Cooper tells us. Nicola Sturgeon says she is interested only in protecting the rights of the Scottish government. Gina Miller, who launched the Article 50 court case, assures any one who will listen that she is concerned only to establish the proper process for the move.

You can believe them if you wish. Personally, I do not.

Let’s look at how the EU élite have reacted when previous referendums have gone against them.

In 1992 the Danish voted NO to the Maastricht Treaty on European Union. Everyone agreed that democracy was paramount and that the result would stand. Then the EU promised to give Denmark some opt-outs. The slavishly pro-EU Danish government then held a second referendum, which it won.

In 2004 the EU panjandrums agreed the grandly named “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”. This sought to sweep away all previous treaties and replace them with a single, unified constitution. That would be a constitution like any other unified state has.

Ratification got under way with Parliaments in several countries pushing it through with big majorities. Spain held a referendum that approved the treaty. Then France held a referendum, which ended with a vote of 55% NO, followed by the Netherlands which gave a resounding 61% NO. Referendums were promptly cancelled in Poland, Portugal, Ireland the UK and Denmark. EU leaders promsied to “respect” the referendum results and called for a “period of reflection”.

That period of reflection ended with the Lisbon Treaty, which was virtually identical to the failed Constitution. This time it was pushed through the French and Dutch parliaments without a referendum. So much for respecting the results.

Then the Lisbon Treaty ran into trouble when referendum in Ireland saw a 53% NO vote. In June 2008 the EU Parliament held a debate on the Irish result. Speaker after speaker declared that they would “respect the result”. But of course, they did not. Just a year later the slavishly pro-EU Irish government held a second vote. This time the EU leaders issued a series of high sounding promises about legal guarantees. This time the Irish voted YES.

So we can see the pattern. If a referendum produces a result the EU does not like, the élites issue high sounding – but utterly worthless – statements about respecting democracy. They they announce a few cosmetic changes and hold a second vote.

I have no doubt at all that this is what is being planned by the Europhiles who were so aghast at losing the British referendum in June. The key difference is that in Denmark, Ireland and elsewhere the national government was obbsequiously pro-EU and could be relied upon both to hold a second vote and to assure their populace that the vague changes were truly wonderful.

Britain in 2016 is different. We have a Prime Minister who has declared that “Brexit is Brexit”. Like her or not, Mrs May and her pro-Brexit administration is all we’ve got to stand a chance of enssuring that our referendum result is not only “respected” but also implemented.

 

Mrs May calls the remainiacs’ bluff

David Cameron bequeathed a tough job to his successor. He had not expected to lose the referendum and had forbidden the Civil Service to produce any sort of Brexit plan. It did not help that the various leave groups had not managed to unite around an agreed plan either.

This meant that, having won our amazing victory against all the odds, we have tasked Mrs May’s government and the Civil Service with the challenge of working through a huge number of extremely important issues relating to Brexit virtually from scratch.

With so much information to digest and to turn into a viable exit route within a tight timescale, the relative silence from the government is understandable. It is wise indeed not to give a running commentary as the complexities are analysed and options evaluated. Nor is it a good idea to reveal your negotiating hand prematurely. The odd hint has crept out, such as the “Have cake and eat it” memo which caused such a stir last week, to be followed very quickly by a denial that it was any indicator of official government policy.

There seems very litle point bothering readers with idle speculation based on what at this stage can only be guesswork. However, whatever the Supreme Court decides about the role of Parliament in triggering Article 50, there is much to be said for our MPs being given some sort of briefing before Article 50 is finally triggered so that they know the escape route the government plans to take.

A motion by Labour calling for the government to publish its plans on Brexit is not therefore particularly unreasonable in and of itself as long as the party accepts that there are good reasons why it is taking some time for the plans to be ready for publication. Unfortunately, Wednesday’s debate revealed that many of our elected representatives are not up to speed on a number of EU-related issues including, for example, the interface between the Single Market, the European Court of Justice and the EU’s customs union.

The government had put forward an amendment confirming that the House of Commons will respect the view of the British people expressed in the EU referendum and call on ministers to start the Article 50 process of exit by the end of March. Although both the motion and the amendment are essentially symbolic, the amendment turned out to be an excellent way of smoking out the troublemakers. There are thankfully few of these among the Tories; although the majority of Conservative MPs voted for  remain, much of the Parliamentary party has rallied round its new leader in respecting the vote and seeking to get the best possible deal.

On the Labour benches, the rude awakening on June 24th that many voters in their heartlands had chosen to support Brexit has meant that a good few MPs were supportive and will not resist the triggering of Article 50 as long as they can be reassued that it will not  result in economic suicide.

With the vote passed by 448 votes to 75 and the Government amendment by 461 votes to 89, we can take some encouragement that the lower house will not derail Brexit. As the Daily Telegraph commented, “The vote….gives MPs a chance to show that they too acknowledge the primacy of the people on Europe. Those who refuse to back the amendment will be making a public declaration of contempt for the voters.”

Of course, Brexit has pulled away a traditional safety net for career politicians whose ambitions are thwarted. If you lose your seat in Westminster, there will usually be some sort of position available for you in Brussels. Indeed, if you manage to fail spectacularly, like Neil Kinnock or Peter Mandelson, you might end up as  Commissioner with a six-figure salary and without even going through any democratic process to get your new job.

For this reason,  the opinion of the electorate perhaps counts for more than it did before, for if you lose the support of your constituents and thus your seat, there will be one less alternative career option open to you.

So when the vote was finally taken, it was a relief that only 89 MPs voted against the government’s amendment, with the majority of Labour MPs siding with the government. After all, whatever the legal niceties about whether or not the referendum was binding, the government’s infamous booklet couldn’t have been clearer:- “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”

Well, we made our decision to leave and as even the Guardian admitted last week, “Remain is still losing rather than winning support. There is no appetite for a second referendum.” It is time for the 89 MPs listed below to wake up and smell the coffee.

Conservatives(1):

Ken Clarke

Labour (23):

Helen Hayes

Meg Hillier

Peter Kyle

David Lammy

Chris Leslie

Ian Murray

Barry Sheerman

Tulip Siddiq

Angela Smith

Catherine West

Daniel Zeichner

Rushanara Ali

Graham Allen

Ben Bradshaw

Ann Coffey

Neil Coyle

Stella Creasy

Geraint Davies

Louise Ellman

Jim Dowd

Chris Evans

Paul Farrelly

Mike Gapes

Lib Dems (5): 

Nick Clegg

Sarah Olney

Mark Williams

Alistair Carmichael

Tim Farron

SDLP (2):

Alasdair McDonnell

Mark Durkan

Plaid Cymru (3):

Liz Saville Roberts

Hywel Williams

Jonathan Edwards

Green (1):

Caroline Lucas

Independent (2): 

Michelle Thomson

Natalie McGarry

SNP (51):

Hendry, Drew.

Stewart Hosie

George Kerevan

Calum Kerr

Chris Law

Angus MacNeil John Mc Nally

Callum McCaig

Stuart McDonald

Anne McLaughlin

Carol Monaghan

Paul Monaghan

Roger Mullin

Gavin Newlands

John Nicolson

Brendan O’Hara

Kirsten Oswald

Steven Paterson

Margaret Ritchie

Angus Robertson

Alex Salmond

Tommy Sheppard

Chris Stephens

Alison Thewliss

Mike Weir

Catherine West

Eilidh Whiteford

Philippa Whitford

Corri Wilson

Pete Wishart

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh

Hannah Bardell

Mhairi Black

Ian Blackford

Kirsty Blackman

Philip Boswell

Deirdre Brock

Alan Brown

Lisa Cameron

Chapman. Douglas

Joanna Cherry

Ronnie Cowan

Angela Crawley

Martyn Day

Martin Docherty-Hughes

Stuart Blair Donaldson

Marrion Fellows

Margaret Ferrier

Stephen Gethins

Patricia Gibson

Patrick Grady

Peter Grant

The tyranny of the majority

(This letter was sent by our Chairman to several local papers in the Midlands)

6th December 2016

Sir,

“The Tyranny of the Majority” is Sir John Major’s complaint of the EU referendum result. He, Tony Blair and friends are seeking to overturn it by the old EU trick of sending people to vote again until they give the “right” answer – that is, one favourable to the EU, which then becomes our lord and master for another forty years or so.

Looking across the Atlantic, we see the remarkable victory of Mr. Trump. The Albany Atlas and Argus once described a presidential candidate as “a slang-whanging stump speaker of which all parties are ashamed”. But that was Abraham Lincoln!

Mr. Trump won in spite of such widely held opinions about him. He did not win a majority of popular votes but a majority in the Electoral College where votes are apportioned to states so that the influence of the most populous states is moderated in this enormous country. It is one of the checks and balances which the Founding Fathers built into the constitution. They also provided that each state should have two Senators – from the smallest to the largest.

Considering all the fuss which the Americans have since made about spreading democracy around the world – often at the point of a gun – it is remarkable how little their Founding Fathers had to say about it. They were classically educated men and knew that all previous democracies had ended in dictatorship or disaster.

So to them “democracy” was a politically incorrect word, meaning more or less what “populism”means to Guardian readers today. As John Smith of Roanoke Virginia put it “Too democratical a constitution and we have but exchanged King George for King Numbers” . Sir John Major appears to agree. Except he does not want King George but Emperor Jean-Claude Juncker, his heirs and successors to rule over us.

Most people agree that Tony Blair politicised the civil service. He also did the same to the administration of justice to fit the EU mould. Nobody was clamouring for a Supreme Court but our previous arrangement with Law Lords, who also sat in the House of Lords, did not fit the Napoleonic model. New Labour aspired to “ continental-style Ministry of Justice” and simply imposed it. But our Supreme Court is, in fact, subordinate to the so-called European Court of Justice.

Long live Emperor Jean-Claude! His predecessor, Senhor Barroso ( the erstwhile Marxist now promoted to glory with Goldman Sachs) said the EU was an empire and he was in a position to know! Major, Blair and company are its faithful subjects.

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton