Bristling Brock speaks out...


  • A
  • Atom
  • Manhatten
  • News
  • Thames

Pin It


It seems that the TV debate between May and Corbyn will not include any other experts or Party leaders.  That in itself is causing some upset and complaints about the 'objective' of such a debate when two essentially Brexit opposed leaders thrash out their versions or justifications for Brexit.   A lot of hot-air, we might assume.

Yet if Mrs May has but one, singular skill, it is in the art of duplicity (as for Mr Corbyn, I can't think of any skills).   So what is Mrs May up to ?  She has shown herself to be quite prepared to say one thing and do another according to her whim of the day; her interest is in politics rather than the national interest and she will manipulate circumstances to make sure her political position remains as unthreatened as it can be.  Her refusal to disclose the full legal advice given to her over her Brexit plan and the equally beligerent refusal to disclose what the White Paper on the political direction of Britain in the Withdrawal Agreement will be - until after the Commons vote on the Agreement - has naturally stirred the suspicion of Brexit Watchers and the obvious conclusion that 'something significant' is beng witheld from both Parliament and the public.

Who we believe in this continuous display of misinformation - from either Party - is the very purpose of Mrs May's battle plan.   Sow confusion, doubt and fear to the point where everybody gets anxious about what the future holds and you get - in parliamentary terms - a growing caucus of retreating objectors who are manipulated into believing that her Brexit Plan - the so called 'only game in town' - is the only 'sensible' thing to vote for.   The appearance by Mark Carney on our TV screens preaching woe and despondency and using highly questionable Treasury statistics is transparently part of the government's Project Fear.   It is no coincidence that Mrs May's whistle-stop tour of the land to encourage backing for her plan at a grass-roots level, the publication of Treasury statistics and Carney's gloomy face and predictions have all been co-ordinated to occur this week to bolster the view that her plan is the only possible way forward.   It is a crass usage of the nation state's resources to campaign as mischievously as this.  If BB was a lawyer he might even say this was downright illegal and a show of the worst possible character of government.

Yet look at what is at stake.  In this, BB is not referring to a good Brexit solution, rather it is a question about what political outcome the PM aspires to achieve.   The PM is fundamentally a Remainer; the position she has found herself in is ambiguous insofar as she has been obliged by law to negotiate a Brexit deal that she neither believes in nor actually wishes to happen.  Her 'Plan' - a word that really doesn't do justice to the flabby terminology of the Withdrawal Agreement - is designed to be flabby, vague and capable of multiple interpretations - the duplicity factor again - knowing that if it ever does get through the Commons then the PM can make that 'interpretation' for us.  And you can bet your life that the symbology of this as the Brexit deal will be in name only.  For all practical purposes we shall still be in the EU and following their judicial, legislative and regulatory agenda without having the slightest say in how that is formed.  And to achieve this bizarre political position the country will have paid at least £39 billion and agreed to continue paying into the EU treasury for as long as it suits the EU.  That's the EU having the deciding vote on when we can opt out - not us, but them !   For Mrs May, she can claim a political victory - a hard fought for deal that suits the whole country but technically puts us outside the EU - some would say a Phyrric Victory from the country's standpoint.   This is what Mrs May wants - a personal, political victory that technically brings Brexit about but in reality changes little in the future affairs of the country.    It is her legacy - one that history will be officially recorded as her crowning achievement rather than a deal that was legally mandated for by the British public.  That is politics and the PM has used that to engineer events to suit her rigid and blinkered view of this nation state.

If, as it is being said, the Commons throw this Agreement out, then the PM can still claim the moral high ground - 'I had the best and only deal in town but parliament threw it out !' gives her the ubiquitous 'Get out of jail free' card; if, miraculously, the deal gets through she also can claim the moral high ground and claim her personal success in bringing it about.  The bottom line, however folks, is that it will be you and I who pay the price for her vanity.  


No thoughts on “A Question of Who We Might Believe The Most”