For me, the most revealing moment of this week's disgraceful political melodrama was not anything Theresa May said to the cameras or in the Commons. It was a brief aside, overheard by a political journalist on Thursday afternoon outside the Palace of Westminster.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had just finished speaking to the Press after publishing his letter of no confidence in the Prime Minister. And as the journalists crowded round, his manservant, the Tory MP Steve Baker, tried to pull his master away.
'Come on Jacob,' he muttered. 'I know you love it.'
Mr Baker probably thought nobody was listening. But Channel 4's Michael Crick heard him. And I am glad he did, because that remark perfectly captures the contemptible irresponsibility that has seized sections of the Conservative Party in the past few days.
'I know you love it.' They should put up a plaque with those words outside the Palace of Westminster, as a warning to future parliamentarians.
Theresa May, pictured outside Downing Street, said in 2016: 'What the Government does isn't a game. It's a serious business that has real consequences for people's lives'
Our country is contemplating the greatest constitutional crisis since World War II. Our entire economic future is uncertain.
Our business leaders are paralysed by uncertainty; our relationship with our closest neighbours hangs in the balance; even the integrity of our united kingdom seems perilously fragile.
The stakes, in other words, could not be higher. But Mr Rees-Mogg is enjoying himself.
It is all just a game to him, as it is to so many of the opponents of Mrs May who have taken to the airwaves in recent days. He is loving it. And that, I think, says it all.
Two years ago, during the chaotic, back-stabbing campaign to succeed David Cameron after the EU Referendum, I wrote in the Mail that Westminster had succumbed to 'a belief in the importance of individual ambition; a childish thirst for melodramatic grandstanding; and a deep sense of narcissism, with the fate of the nation too often wrapped up in the advance of one man's career'.
At the time, only one contender struck me as having the pragmatism, maturity and integrity to handle the colossal challenge of negotiating our exit from the EU. That person was Theresa May.
For as she said at the time: 'What the Government does isn't a game. It's a serious business that has real consequences for people's lives.'
She was right then, and she is right now. And she deserves far, far better than to be betrayed by posturing ministers such as Dominic Raab and Esther McVey.
Yes, Mrs May's deal is less than perfect. She admits as much herself. But did anyone really think that she would return from Brussels with the perfect deal? Did any sane person really believe the EU would give us everything we wanted?
Did they really believe that the Irish would miraculously drop their insistence on a soft border with Northern Ireland? Did anyone really believe the ultra-Brexiteers' nonsensical claims that Germany's car manufacturers would somehow 'force' Angela Merkel to cave in?
There are, of course, conspiracy theorists who think Mrs May deliberately plotted to get a bad deal for this country. Similarly, some of her critics claim that some other Prime Minister would have got a better deal — though what that deal would be, and crucially, why the EU would accept it, they never quite specify.
Still, let's pretend they are right. Let's pretend that Boris Johnson, such a risible failure as Foreign Secretary, or David Davis, such a drab ineffectual Brexit Secretary, would have got a miraculously better deal.
Even if that were the case — and it isn't — the plain fact is that this is the only deal on the table. The EU have already indicated that they will not contemplate a major renegotiation. Though there might, just might, be tiny concessions to be granted as the cliff edge begins to crumble beneath their feet, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are bluffing. All the time, the clock is ticking. At 11pm on March 29, Britain will leave the EU. If we do so without a deal, then almost all economists, business leaders and civil servants agree that the consequences will be disastrous.
They might be wrong, of course. But when so many people's livelihoods depend on it, what sane person wants to take that gamble?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (pictured) and his cronies may welcome the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. But they are precisely the people who claimed that the EU would roll over in the negotiations
In reality, the pygmies sniping at Mrs May care little for Britain's future. They are much more interested in their own political future.
The prime exhibit is her former Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab, who flounced out of her Cabinet on Thursday morning. He handed in his notice just in time to make the breakfast news bulletins and ignite his leadership campaign.
In his resignation statement, Mr Raab set out two objections to Mrs May's deal. First, he dislikes the fact that it envisages a slightly different regulatory regime in Northern Ireland. Second, he is displeased that the so-called backstop arrangement, which we might not need, makes it impossible for us to leave the customs union without the EU's agreement.
As it happens, I'm not delighted about these things either. I doubt anybody is. So I eagerly read on to see Mr Raab's alternative.
And what do you know? There wasn't one. Not even the slightest hint of one. The reason is that a plausible, realistic alternative — which means one that the EU will accept — just does not exist.
In an ideal world, the EU would have rolled over. They would have ignored the complaints of the Republic of Ireland, waived all future British payments into their budget, allowed us bespoke access to the single market and allowed us to strike our own trade deals with whoever we liked. But we do not live in an ideal world. For in an ideal world, the EU would never have come into existence.
A single supranational entity covering the entire European continent, it represents everything that British policymakers have tried to avoid for centuries. We fought against the Spanish empire of Philip II, the French empires of Louis XIV and Napoleon, the German empires of Kaiser Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler precisely because we hated the thought of a single power controlling Western Europe.
But when France and Germany came together in the early Fifties, there was not much we could do about it. At first we tried to ignore it. Then we formed our own rival free trade association, EFTA, which was a complete flop.
In 1960, Harold Macmillan wrote in his diary that we faced a 'grim choice' of joining the Common Market, or allowing it to become 'a boastful, powerful 'Empire of Charlemagne', now under French but later bound to come under German control'.
He chose the former, although Charles de Gaulle vetoed British entry in 1963 and we had to wait another ten years.
What Macmillan realised, and what all his successors have had to face, is that we cannot simply wish the EU away.
Even the late Margaret Thatcher, the Brexiteers' heroine, knew that. She was a pragmatist to her fingertips, not a posturing bomb-thrower.
That was why, during the first European referendum in 1975, she campaigned to Remain, even wearing a jumper bedecked with the flags of the European member states. And although she won a handsome budget rebate for Britain in the early Eighties, as Prime Minister she never took us out. Quite the reverse: it was Mrs Thatcher who pushed hardest for the creation of the single market, which we are about to leave.
As it is well known, she later changed her mind, becoming a staunch Eurosceptic after she left office. But given her record of pragmatism and — yes! — compromise, I have no doubt she would have recoiled from the strutting antics of Mr Rees-Mogg and his associates.
Don't get me wrong: none of this means I think we should betray the result of the 2016 referendum.
Theresa May, pictured giving a press conference at Downing Street on Thursday, has faced a week of political drama with ministerial resignations and a plot to unseat her as party leader
A second referendum would be profoundly undemocratic, socially damaging and an unforgivable insult to the 17.4 million who voted Leave.
But to pretend, after all these long months of talks, that we can leave entirely on our own terms is simply deceitful. Did you ever hear of a divorce settlement in which one partner got everything and the other nothing? The basic reality is that leaving the EU was always going to be a trade-off. In a world in which the EU exists, we have to weigh up competing priorities. If we were only interested in money, it would probably have been better to stay in. If we were only interested in sovereignty, it would be better to crash out.
But most normal, sane people —by which I do not mean people who parade through London demanding a second referendum, mutter darkly about Mrs May's treachery, stage preening press conferences at Westminster and time their resignations for personal advantage — want a bit of both. We want more national sovereignty — for example, over our borders — but we don't want to crash our economy into the gutter. We want to be able to strike trade deals to suit ourselves, but we don't want our businesses to lose their crucial EU supply chains.
And that, more or less, is what Mrs May's deal represents. Is it perfect? No. Is it pragmatic, in the best traditions of the Conservative Party? Yes.
Would Mrs Thatcher have got a better deal? I don't think so. She might have made more of a fuss, swung her handbag around and made better speeches. And she might have done a better job of selling it.
But not even the Iron Lady would have been able to change the basic facts of political life. She would have compromised; she almost always did.
And here are the really crucial questions. Is there a better deal on the table? Would it be possible to get a new deal before March? Is it plausible that the EU would give us such a deal? Is it really worth risking the chaos of crashing out without a deal?
My answers are no, no, no and definitely not.
Mr Rees-Mogg and his cronies may welcome the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. But they are precisely the people who claimed that the EU would roll over in the negotiations. They were wrong then. Why should they be right this time?
In reality, a no-deal Brexit would be an economic and political calamity worse than the Winter of Discontent in the Seventies, worse than the three-day week and potentially even more damaging than the Great Depression.
A chaotic Brexit would also risk handing power to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, who would seize the chance to send Britain lurching to the far Left, with horrific and irreparable consequences for millions of ordinary families, as well as for our global reputation, international allies and the future of our economy.
Does Mr Rees-Mogg want Jeremy Corbyn destroying our Armed Forces? Does Ms McVey want John McDonnell disarming our police? Does Mr Raab want John McDonnell renationalising everything in sight?
Are they really so arrogant, so narcissistic, that they would inflict a Corbyn government on Middle Britain? I cannot believe it.
Whatever you think of Mrs May's deal, a woman who has served the country with such conspicuous commitment, integrity and sense of duty deserves better than to be betrayed by a moral degenerate like Boris Johnson, an intellectual vacuum like Esther McVey or a preening mountebank like Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I doubt that Mrs May has enjoyed the past few days, mind you. But she is not in politics to enjoy herself. For unlike Mr Rees-Mogg, she knows that it is not a game.
Linkhienalouca.com
https://hienalouca.com/2018/11/17/dominic-sandbrook-even-the-iron-lady-wouldnt-have-got-a-better-deal/
Main photo article For me, the most revealing moment of this week’s disgraceful political melodrama was not anything Theresa May said to the cameras or in the Commons. It was a brief aside, overheard by a political journalist on Thursday afternoon outside the Palace of Westminster.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had just...
It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.
Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.
Dianne Reeves Online news HienaLouca
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/11/17/00/6298288-6399741-image-m-55_1542413677215.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий