27/04/2017
It is a small event, but to have Peter "ten minute" Lilley
stand down from Parliament at this election is good news. It removes a prominent "Ultra" from the ranks of the Conservative â and if it was Mrs May's intention to dilute their ranks, she has succeeded in that respect.
There is, of course, a
personal issue, as the man's unwanted intervention has not made life any easier, especially as he is regarded as something as an intellectual amongst his peers. But with him now on his way, we can perhaps remember him as one of the five MPs (including the tellers) who voted against the Climate Change Act.
Nevertheless, in the very last PMQs of his 34-year career, Lilley was not content to leave things alone, asking Mrs May whether she agreed that, if we are to secure a reasonable deal, we must accept that no deal is indeed better than a bad deal. To deny this, he said, "signals that no price is too high, no concession too grovelling to accept - a recipe for the worst possible deal".
If this signifies an "intellectual" approach to politics, though, then it is no wonder we are in so much trouble. Since no possible outcome could be worse than "no deal", then to walk away from the talks is not a credible threat. To put it on the table merely invites the "colleagues" to call our bluff â for that it would be â leaving us with nowhere to go.
Fortunately, Mrs May didn't rise to the bait. Dead-batting Lilley's proposition, she merely remarked that the only way to ensure we had "a strong hand in negotiations" was to ensure that a Conservative Government was elected on 8 June.
Certainly, that is probably necessary, although I doubt very much whether it is sufficient â there is a lot more to do before we are even close to a tenable negotiating position.
But that left another departee, the former Ukip MP for Clacton, Douglas Carswell, to ask Mrs May what assurances she could give the 3.8 million Ukip voters at the least election that the "United Kingdom will become a sovereign country again, living under our own Parliament and making our own laws".
Mrs May easily fielded that one, giving an assurance to "all those people who voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union - and to all people across the country, regardless of how they voted" that "we want to see control of our borders, control of our laws and control of our money". And that, she said, "is what we will deliver" â even if she didn't commit herself to a timescale.
But, if these were the last ever questions that the Prime Minister will answer from this pair, it was also the last session of the Parliament before it prorogues, the MPs have to turn off the official websites, and those that wish to sit again have (briefly) to fight for their livings.
Jeremy Corbyn tried to make the most of the occasion, attempting to focus the campaign on Labour's comfort zone, turning this into an "NHS election". He failed, of course. There can be few in this country who see this as anything other than a "Mandate for May" to take with her to Brussels.
Even if Mrs May was on less sparkling form, I suspect it had nothing to do with Ukip's Brexit spokesman Gerard Batten
declaring his intention to stand for Maidenhead, seeking to depose the Prime Minister.
At least Batten is standing â which is more than can be said for his leader, as the party slides down to
four percent in one set of polls, while even YouGov has them on a mere seven percent.
What may have preoccupied Mrs May was then a
coming meeting in No 10 with M. Barnier and Juncker, prior to the European Council meeting this weekend. But beyond knowing that the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU was discussed, we are none the wiser. One hopes that Mrs May will be.
In another remarkable counterpoint, though, we can be absolutely assured that one person left completely untouched by wisdom is the
sociopathic Mr Johnson who has been speaking at the Lord Mayor's banquet, telling his audience that Brexit could usher in a "new era of trade deals".
Amongst the happy little fantasies that Mr Johnson entertains is that that he can secure tariff reductions on Scotch whisky, thereby increasing sales to India. Yet, since local and state discriminatory taxes are also applied, this would not have anything like the effect he might wish for.
Mr Johnson might also talk to
existing importers who are finding that arcane labelling requirements are limiting export opportunities.
For instance, exporters were quite content to affix stickers to product packs, specifying country-specific details but then regulations changed to require details to be printed on packs before they are shipped to India. If any details are incorrect, importers are not allowed to correct them in order to secure customs clearance. The goods have to be returned to the originating country.
A similar problem currently affects the maximum retail prices which
must be printed on packaging before the goods are submitted for customs clearance. However, since the price is affected by local taxes which cannot be known until is distributed for sale, the requirements are impossible to meet and become absolute barriers to the import of certain goods.
This is but a small taste of the non-tariff barriers that await us when we seek to do business in that brave, new post-Brexit world. Currently, these Indian labelling regulations are only the tip of the iceberg.
Another delight was the introduction of 100 percent sampling of containers, when earlier sampling had been limited to 5-10 percent. At one time, containers were hardly getting cleared, with disastrous effect on the sale of imported snacks and treats during the festival season.
The point here is that no sooner is one obstruction cleared then the inventive Indian authorities dream up something new to frustrate their importers. If Mr Johnson thinks that the Indian sub-continent is going to bail him out, he's sadly mistaken.
Needless to say though, adult discussion of such issues in on hold, while the
idiots unite to prattle about tariff barriers which have long since ceased to have any relevance.
Softly, softly, though,
banks and other businesses are preparing to move staff out of the UK, with thousands of jobs on notice to move. By no means are all these are being publicised, but high-level managers are speaking privately about plans which have moved from speculation to firm intention.
Yet, all the while, we get this pathetic little charade in Parliament, with politicians and their fellow travellers endlessly prattling about that which they know nothing. The one small mercy is that we are spared the weekly ritual of PMQs for a while, although the replacements are hardly likely to prove any better.
