Solving The Brexit Shambles

Photo Via AnotherAngryVoice.

Thomas Clark was quite angry about Brexit last September and, to be fair, had every right to be. What he wrote that day seems very prescient now. “This total lack of anything even remotely resembling a plan of action that the political class could be held to in the result of a Brexit vote was the main objection of anyone who considered the subject with any degree of seriousness. Had the pro-Brexit camp actually presented their plan we could have considered it on its merits. The fact that they just had a random jumble of slogans, utopian fantasies and false promises instead of an actual strategy for what comes next meant there really was nothing serious to consider”. Yes Thomas is a committed Remainer but I hardly think Brexiteers could argue with much of that. We are nearly one year on and there is still no credible plan that I can see so I wrote Brexit Omnishambles.

The first problem which I touched upon in that piece was the referendum itself, which is described by Phil Hendren (aka @dizzy_thinks) thus, “It seems to me, with hindsight, the EU Referendum Act 2015 was the worst piece of legislation passed by Parliament ever”. It is not the result of the referendum but the wording of it as a binary question when it was anything but. He goes on “This was, without a doubt a massive mistake that has played out in the national debate of the last year. There was nothing about the Single Market or the Customs Union, and as we all know, a state does not need to be a member of the EU in order to be a member of either of these things”. This is precisely why we’re having this debate now instead of when we should have had it.

Another prominent Remainer Frances Copolla having initially accepted the result is now suffering from Buyers Remorse, she wrote, “I saw a completely different political paradigm, though I could not discern its shape. And I saw a possibility that, like Hong Kong in 1997, the fears of economic disaster would prove baseless, and Britain would have a bright future, though one which I could not imagine. I called on everyone to try to make Brexit work”. That has turned into “Since I wrote that, the world has been turned upside down. Britain is in a deep political crisis which started the day after the Brexit vote and shows no sign of ending”. This is a perfectly principled decision, she has looked at the evidence and changed her mind, Brexit never Brexit, it was never defined and to my knowledge still hasn’t been. One thing I can say for sure she hasn’t done so to court popularity.

So who speaks for Brexit? Let’s look at Brexit Central a Twitter account, no sign of remorse there, everything is going swimmingly but for the fact Brexit may not be hard enough. They approvingly quote a junior minister Steve Baker as saying “It would be fatal show of weakness – “like putting blood in the water” – to let Brussels believe Britain is stepping back from the Prime Minister’s hardline proposals, set out in January”. That would be the set of proposals that has already been laughed out of court by the other 27 member nation states then. They are exceedingly cross that the Chancellor is pushing for the retention of the customs union arguing that ” continuing to abide by the rules of the customs union would continue to restrict Britain’s ability to pursue an independent international trade policy. EU rules bar members of the customs union from striking bilateral trade deals”. Whilst damaging to trade relationship with our biggest trading partner, way to go guys.

By a happy coincidence the world seems terribly concerned about North Korea my contempt of this notion being made plain here. My very good friend Scott Adams (Disclaimer: He doesn’t know me) has an idea or three for solving that particular impasse. It goes like this. “The current frame on how all sides are approaching the problem is a win-lose setup. Either North Korea wins – and develops nukes that can reach the mainland USA – or the United States wins, and North Korea abandons its nuclear plans, loses face, loses leverage, and loses security. Our current framing of the situation doesn’t have a path to success“. I don’t see how that’s very different to our current malaise, the UK is hopelessly divided and no matter which side “wins” around half the electorate will end up severely pis… annoyed, miffed even.

Back to Scott for the outline of a solution. ” You need some form of a win-win setup to make any kind of deal. That’s what I’m about to suggest. And by winning, I mean both sides get what they need, even if it isn’t exactly what they said they want“. I like the sound of that already, it’s commonly called compromise although that isn’t usually the Btritish way. So Scott’s solution to the NK dilemma?

Proposed North Korean Peace Deal

China, Russia, and U.S. sign a military security agreement to protect

BOTH

North Korea and South Korea from attack

BY ANYONE

for 100 years, in return for North Korea suspending its ICBM and nuclear weapons programs and allowing inspectors to confirm they are sticking to the deal.

That is basically where we need to park Brexit in the long grass where it belongs. We find a deal where everyone wins above. Kim Yong Un has no opposition press he can call that the unconditional surrender of the mighty USA grovelling at the feet of the Glorious Leader. America has the dubious  honour of removing NK as a potential source of nuclear attack even though it wasn’t one in the first place, their press will lap that up,

My advice to the hard Brexiteers is take any Brexit you are offered or my prediction will come true, you won’t get any Brexit at all.

Many thanks to Francis Copolla, Scott Adams, Thomas Clark and Phil Hendren, I hope you follow their links.

Don’t forget to click Newsfeed for more stories from around the web.