Brexit: the revolution eats its children

20/11/2018

That has always been the curse of Euroscepticism and from the look of it, nothing has changed. A headline in the Telegraph tells it all: "Tory Eurosceptics have admitted an attempt to unseat Theresa May had stalled as bitter in-fighting broke out among Brexiteers".

Despite "confident predictions" from Tory rebels that a no confidence vote would be held as soon as Tuesday, says the paper, the extra letters from Conservative MPs needed to trigger a ballot failed to materialise on Monday. So, we are told, the vote now appears to be "on hold" until after Parliament votes next month on Brexit.

Just one new name came forward to reveal they had submitted a letter last night. This was "hardline" Eurosceptic Philip Hollobone, and he'd sent in a letter four months ago.

One senior Brexiteer source is cited as saying: "Today was supposed to be the day we finally got the 48 letters needed to force a no confidence vote but some people didn't turn up to be counted. There is a lot of frustration, especially with some of the big names who haven't yet put letters in".

The feeling is that many of the colleagues don't want to commit themselves yet and were setting their sights on reaching the target after parliament votes next month. They believe that Mrs May would be more likely to lose a confidence vote if she had already lost a vote on the Brexit deal. Another of these "senior Eurosceptics" thus tells The Telegraph that: "Many people are saying that the meaningful vote is the right time to put in letters, that they don't want to do it yet".

Meanwhile "senior Brexiteers" Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson have been meeting Mrs May in Downing Street which, according to The Sun had "furious Brexit Tory rebels" accusing their older colleagues of "slamming the brakes on a bid to oust Theresa May because they want peerages".

But another of these brave Eurosceptics said of Messrs Duncan Smith and Paterson: "I find it surprising that they are so biddable. I cannot understand why they are so willing to believe what Downing Street is saying when they have gone back on their word on every other occasion. It's hugely frustrating".

There you have it. When the chips are down, the "ultras" can't even mount a decent rebellion. And then the time comes for a vote in parliament, we've already suggested that the most likely outcome is that Mrs May will turn that into a vote of confidence, and the Tory "ultras" will fold. That's what they do.

Of course, they will have all sorts of justifications but the reality is that, confronted with the prospect of a general election where Corbyn might get elected. they will suddenly find they can live with the "un-deal". Their survival comes first.

Nevertheless, Mrs May seems to be helping herself in the propaganda stakes – if that's what we're seeing. In The Sun, we are told that she has "drawn up a secret plan to scrap the controversial Irish backstop in a bid to win round angry Tory Brexiteers". Thus the paper claims that she has "quietly won agreement" for "alternative arrangements" to keep the Irish border open.

It turns out that this is our old friend "maximum facilitation", which is supposedly being "studied afresh" in No.10. Mrs May is said to hope to regain some Brexiteer support if she commits to working up this "technological solution" in time to avoid the need for any backstop.

Despite this option having already been ruled out by the EU, here it is again making a guest appearance, dragged out of retirement to fool gullible "ultras" – or perhaps to give them an excuse to vote for the draft withdrawal agreement in parliament. At this stage it's impossible to say.

What is clear though is that this whole thing seems to be descending into a shambles – as much farce as tragedy, with commentary not far from gibberish. After Kier Starmer pronouncing that he would use parliament to make "no deal" impossible, we now have the cretin David Davis adding his stupidity to the pile.

In the home of the politically hard of learning, Conservative Home, we have him asserting that, "if we need to leave with no deal and negotiate a free trade agreement during the transition period, so be it". He adds, "Let's be clear and honest and tell the EU that’s what we are prepared to do".

From any other MP we might just be prepared to write this off as the random stupidity so common of the breed but this man, until recently, was secretary of state for Brexit and (theoretically) in charge of our negotiations.

It is almost an insult to the intelligence to remind people that, without a deal there is no transition period. But one has to concede of CH, if they can find somebody stupid enough to plumb the depths, they can be sure to find space on its website.

I wrote recently of the Brexit debate that the problem with it was that it was impossible to kill a bad idea – and so it is that we have another example of this as CH allows the idiot Davis to say that, without a deal, "we only need to be ready to trade under World Trade Organisation rules".

Faced with this sort of low-IQ politics from "our man in Brussels" (until recently), it is no wonder that the EU is taking us to the cleaners. It did so when we joined and now, it seems ready to repeat the same thing as we leave.

It almost goes without saying though that a voluble faction of the "remain" tendency is exploiting the shambles to press home its "people's vote" agenda. One of the latest recruits to the cause is Times columnist Rachel Sylvester. In her view, "remainer" MPs have been pushed too far by Brexit extremists and they will now stand and fight for what they believe.

She cites "pro-European ministers" who, she says, are so worried about the economic consequences of a "no-deal" Brexit that if the country was heading for such a scenario they would resign and support a people's vote. "We have made compromises to hold the government together but the hard Brexiteers can only push us so far before we go to war", says one. "If they get us to no-deal then all bets are off".

In it's own way though, this is another example of low-IQ politics. It must be obvious by now to even the meanest intellect that there is no time for a referendum – and (just as importantly) no political will to make it happen. That and other barriers will ensure that there will not be a referendum on the Brexit deal.

Former Times editor, Simon Jenkins, is more coherent, lambasting "remainers" for the "silence of the lambs". As soon as the referendum result was announced, he says, the defeated remainers tried to pretend it had not happened. They demanded another referendum, which inevitably sounded like sour grapes and a denial of democracy.

Some insulted Brexiters and others, Jenkins continues, wasted time going to court. They even joined hard Brexiters in deriding such compromises as versions of the Norway option, the single market and a customs union. The case for soft Brexit went by the board.

This man concludes that the case for remaining in some form of single market with the rest of Europe is overwhelming. One day he is sure it will happen but the cost and chaos of getting there has been immeasurably increased by the failure of former "remainers" to fashion an argument and give it political traction. They have, he avers, "snatched a second defeat from the jaws of the first".

And still that defeat looms large. Some suggest that it might be possible to negotiate the Efta/EEA option during the transition period, although I doubt very much whether the current 21 months allowed would be sufficient to conclude the deal. Even with an additional year, it would be a pinch.

One must remember here that the EEA arrangements alone would not be sufficient to normalise relations with the EU. Norway, for instance, still finds it necessary to keep a further 50 bilateral treaties in force.

And, of course, once the transition period is past and we are (inevitably) in the grip of the Protocol on Ireland, the commitment in Article 4 to harmonise UK commercial policy with the common commercial policy of the Union, set out in Article 207 of the consolidated treaties, requires us to hand over "the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services" to the EU. On that basis, the window of opportunity to join Efta (itself a trade agreement) would be snapped shut.

It is said of Brexit that it was the start of a revolution and, with the activities of the "ultras" we have seen a revolution within a revolution. And all too soon, we are seeing the seemingly inevitable consequence, where the revolution eats its children. But even with that (or especially), we can never go back to where we were.