Rick´s News

Almost two years since the referendum and we are no further down the road than ”Brexit means Brexit”, meaning nobody has a clue what Brexit will turn out to be. That fact in itself together with the ever increasing warnings of economic woe is slowly beginning to get to people, making them wonder if their no to the EU was such a good idea.  Although the government and Labour are still dithering around their own Brexit supporting standpoints there is growing political pressure to subject whatever deal Theresa May comes up with to a vote, including an option to stay in the EU. 

As I mentioned in October, Theresa May is on a mission impossible and there really is no way out for her other than one of a limited number of more or less dramatic moves.  It is said pride comes before a fall and the Prime Minister is the victim of her own arrogance from the invoking of Article 50 to her nonsensical ”Brexit means Brexit, Strong and Stable, Citizens of Nowhere, No Deal is better than a Bad Deal” etc. etc.  Lack of competence or foresight, you choose?  Theresa May was of the persuasion that forceful yet meaningless sound bites, showing she was getting behind it, was all that was needed to deliver the prize. 

At the outset as a new Prime Minister this advisory referendum gave her plenty of scope from on the one hand viewing the result as a voice for a cliff edge departure to on the other hand negotiating the best possible deal as a non-member of the EU and offering transparency on all the strings attached. A complement to this pragmatic approach would have been an escape-hatch in the form of a vote in Parliament including a Remain option should any of the Brexit optains fail to gain enough political support. 

This in fact is where we are today with the exception of the escape-hatch in the form of a parliamentary Remain option. The wheels have come off the Tory Brexit bus and for good measure it appears the engine has seized too. Theresa May is still behind the wheel making engine noises and Jeremy Corbyn is still collecting fares but it is nothing if not embarassing.

Apparently Labour are not doing well in the polls and despite all the talk of Tory austerity who needs an opposition that verbally opposes austerity yet actually supports future Brexit austerity?  Under Jeremy Corbyn Labour is running a sideshow and until it changes its Brexit stance the future of Britain will be in the hands of the Tories.

Theresa May´s options?

1. Doing nothing and letting time slip into a ”no deal crashing out” scenario which would not require Labour support only tacit acceptance.
2. A U-turn on a red line or two and negotiating a BINO, Brexit in name only.
3. Calling another election as all other options with existing red lines are unattainable might be seen as a way out but the question has to be asked. On what platform?

 

It seems to me that the Brexit can that Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have taken turns in kicking down the road has run out of road to kick down.  The next few months will be decisive in defining Theresa May´s Brexit means Brexit. If you have never had much time for that expression and are seriously upset at whatever prospects are in store for you or the country, depending on the undefined will of the people in combination with the incompetent handling of negotiations and the whole damn Brexit issue, then you might be advised to make use of the local elections come 3rd May. Being a more than 15 year absent disenfranchised Brit I would like to urge all EU nationals living in Britain to exercise their right and vote in the country I am now barred from doing so. Now it is not my place to tell anybody who or what to vote for but if you are anti-Brexit and pro-EU here is a little story that might help.

As a teenager in the 60´s we had a retired greyhound whose racing name was Loud Laughter, possibly because whenever she was pleased with something she would bare her teeth with a snuffle, making it look and sound as if she was laughing. We called her Saucy for short and although she once bit me on the nose (another story) I otherwise only have fond memories of our time together. Now Saucy and I would take long walks past the cricket field in Horsham up to Denne Hill  where I would let her loose. Now I had no record of her racing history and despite doubting that she was ever a racing star she ran a lot faster than I ever could. Once on Denne Hill her favourite pastime was chasing rabbits. Now you may think it awful of me to have allowed such a thing considering the more than bloody consequences should she have succeeded in catching her prey. The thing is I was very much aware that she would never catch a rabbit not because she couldn´t run fast enough which she could but solely because she had no focus. It almost seemed to me as if the rabbits were just a tiny bit smarter than dear old Saucy. She would be chasing one rabbit and getting closer when suddenly, catching sight of another rabbit on her right or  left, she would begin to chase that rabbit instead. This procedure would be repeated until all the rabbits had disappeared into their burrows.

The moral of this story is if you are anti-Brexit keep your focus.

No chasing on the right or left. Labour and Conservative are luring you away from your goal.

Catch the rabbit in the middle = ABTV. That rabbit will get us a final say.

(ABTV = Anti-Brexit Tactical Voting)

Today marks the day when in one year from now the United Kingdom will be leaving the EU. There is a lot of talk about getting our country back, taking back control of our borders, sovereignty, no freedom of movement, control of our money, blue passports, becoming a global nation, free trading with the world etc, etc. These arguments together with the soundbites Brexit means Brexit, Strong and Stable, Deep and Special Relationship are not unlike any sort of political rhetoric before an election. Simple, easy to understand as they have little factual content and are very much appealing, more to the emotion than anything else.

Jacob Reese Mogg in his usual polite, excremental manner puts a finer point to it. He calls Remainers cave dwellers. Being on the side of Brexit he is not only rude but also biased. In essence what he is saying is that Remainers did not understand what they were voting for.  In the case of Brexit it has become painfully obvious that that is exactly what has happened and unfortunately for JRM it is Leavers who did not know what they were voting for.

People who voted Remain, for whatever reason, voted for a status quo. In fact knowledgable or no they understood exactly what they were voting for. Saying yes to leaving the EU on the other hand was putting your trust in a variety of arguments and the Brexiters/politicians offering those arguments. There is a lot of talk about lying on both sides. Maybe so but to me it´s more about faith than truth. I wouldn´t call a man who believes in God a liar.  So I think we can forget the mud slinging and accept that Remainers understood what they were voting for and Leavers didn´t.  Now I would expect a Brexiter to pop up and say, ” yes, we knew exactly what we were voting for, leaving the EU”

Ok. Now we are back at the simple political rhetoric stage. We still do not know what leaving the EU means.  Brexit means Brexit is as clear as pizza means pizza although there is some agreement on avoiding the hot sauce.

So if you knew what you were voting for and it was a blue passport then congratulations and Happy Easter.

Leadership as defined by the Business Dictionary

• The individuals who are leaders in an organization, regarded collectively.
• The activity of leading a group of people or an organization or the ability to do this.

Leadership involves:

1. Establishing a clear vision.
2. Sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly.
3. Providing the information, knowledge and methods to realize that vision.
4. Coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders.

A leader steps up in times of crisis and is able to think and act creatively in difficult situations.

I found the above definition of leadership on the internet and although there is obviously a ”more detail” link to be pressed this rather sums up the essence of what is required to lead any group, formal or informal. This advice is as pertinent to parents with children unruly or otherwise as it is to leaders in business, with politicians being no exception. The raison d’être differs considerably as do the preconditions set for each leading individual and although the definition of well-being may vary from organization to organization it serves well as a common denominator be it for a family, a club, a business, a hospital or even a country. Ignoring the basics of leadership puts this well-being at risk.

With Britain in its present state there are certainly a good many people asking themselves how are we going to get out of this mess. Unfortunately for the country the people who led the UK into this are the very same people now trying to unravel it. Having bungled the first point on the above list, ignored points 2, 3 and 4 they are now at the crisis bit, bickering amongst themselves and incapable of facing the issues on hand. ”The will of the people” a mantra nowadays being muttered with much the same reverence as the Lord´s Prayer is the vision that according to them must under all circumstances be adhered to. Even if I find that argument a little weak as the referendum was advisory the ”will of the people” ought to have been seen as a precondition for establishing a vision being open ended enough for some sensible solutions. The stage was set for a leader to step up and take control; a Brexit sound bite Prime Minister Theresa May has not and is not living up to. She took the easy way out. She let the ”will of the people” become the vision, full well knowing it to be incomplete as such. At this moment she usurped the leave vote and slammed the door shut on her chance of ever becoming anything other than a political parenthesis.

Theresa May´s nonsensical ”Brexit means Brexit” and invoking of article 50 was a slap in the face of her country and her party. Instead of some careful reflection on what people were expecting by voting leave and research on how that compared to the attainable options and then carefully moving on to point 2 she shoved ”strong and stable” and ”Brexit means Brexit” down everybody´s throat resulting in the absolute opposite to gathering willing followers. This was underlined by her foolishly calling and then losing an election. Now that ”strong and stable” had become ”weak and wobbly” and the country´s less than willing followers into the Brexit unknown were voicing concern as to the negative effects of leaving the EU, point 3 on the list was definitely not on. By rapidly invoking article 50 she exposed her weakness as a leader with little regard and or ability for point 4.

Together with many other people who feel the Uk´s future lies with the EU I was of course disappointed with the result but in all seriousness it is the people who voted leave that should also be up in arms. People who voted remain realize that their lives will change. They lost. People who voted leave were lied to on a number of issues concerning the benefits of Brexit and bearing in mind the great number of options still open have not yet won anything other than an unachievable slogan the ”will of the people. ” Remain may have lost the referendum but leave have lost their Brexit due to political incompetence and arrogance. When Brexit is finally negotiated only a fraction of these leave voters will have received what they voted for. The question therefore is and should be can the rest of us go along with the happy few? The question has to be put.

A final say is the only decent and democratic thing to do.

A suitable film title for the comedy of errors that is being acted out in the UK with a bemused world watching.  Despite avidly gathering  as much information as I can on Brexit I frustratingly find myself arriving at the same conclusion as Theresa May, ”Brexit means Brexit.” For a short period the Prime Minister managed to successfully convince me and a few others I imagine that she actually was strong and stable and knew what she was doing, until it dawned on me that when she said ”Brexit means Brexit” she had as much idea of what it meant as most of us did, that is not a clue. Well, to be honest, politicians not always revealing their intentions or plans is nothing I normally lose sleep over, more like irritated that sound bites are considered being material enough for voters like me, read stupid, to gung ho along. Churchill said most of that in, you know, ”fooling all the people…,” although I am beginning to believe that Theresa May either didn’t understand what he was saying or she didn’t read to the end, ”….you can´t fool all the people all of the time.” The view can can be taken though that she isn´t  attempting to fool anybody. ”Brexit means Brexit” just about covers everything on the subject and not a lie if you haven´t a clue what it means. The Daily Telegraph would you believe has twigged on, calling the government  clueless and other rather unpleasant epithets. The Independent thinks it´s a done deal where EU has just about told the UK not only what it can get but what the EU thinks it should have, other than possibly Remain.  Some of the issues like the cash seem to have been resolved, the Irish conundrum has been fudged and the earlier red lines set out are not showing up in the dark hours of Winter but they have not gone away.  A ”No Deal” crash continues to have a number of supporters and I am not referring to the xenophobic Brexit Taliban and their ”it´s my cuntry innit?” but to the hard line Brexiters, not only the Tory right, who realise that the negative effects for their country may have some positive effects for themselves. The mood of the public however is changing, not fast enough or dramatically enough for any foot shifting but in the light of the ever increasing negative effects of Brexit making everyone rather nervous. I see no immediate way out of this. We are not witnessing a process changing the political direction of a country after a vote in parliament, we are witnessing damage control after a referendum lost to people addressing their grievances rather than their needs. There is no plan, not for these people not for any of us. HMS United Kingdom is floundering in heavy seas with a sea-sick Captain lashed to the wheel, her officers bickering among themselves on the bridge and Jeremy, the stoker in the boiler room shovelling coal for all he´s worth.

The general consensus is however that 2018 will actually reveal to us what ”Brexit means Brexit” really means. In my opinion there is no acceptable in-between or ”Soft Brexit” meaning all rule taker but no rule maker which is why I prefer to call it a ”Pretend Brexit”  It will therefore be one of 3 things:

• No Deal aka Hard Over the Cliff Brexit on Friday 29th March 2019.
• Remain
• A transition period with a Pretend Brexit or Hard Brexit in view that will most likely run out in a Remain.

But for now Brexit means Brexit.

Although I am not particularly fond of this expression I find myself quite happy to use it as it sort of sums up my feelings on where we are at the moment on Brexit. Christmas just happened along and suffices as a pleasant decoration to a pretty grim situation. Theresa May and apparently Michel Barnier et al. are all happy that Phase 2 of the negotiations has now been given the go ahead and is planned to start in March 2018. Right so everybody´s happy? Au contraire mon ami!  To be quite honest I do not think anybody is that happy, it´s more a case of how unhappy everybody is. Ranging from foaming at the mouth angry, to a gentle it could be worse attitude.

1. Extreme Brexiters: Starting at the howling end I think we will find our extreme Brexiters. A mixed bunch of rich and or influential people longing for the day when the EU will no longer be in a position to mix in their affairs. They call it taking back control and just like the rosy future that is promised, taking back control does in no way include the many. The extreme Brexiters are all very upset that a transition period where the UK becomes a rule taker instead of a rule maker might have some rather nasty side effects. Not to mention the fact that a transition period is by definition time allowed for adjustment and as such if need be open for extension and a possible reversing of Brexit. The rosy future might also be exposed during that transition period as being rosy alone for rich Brexiters.
2. Hard Line Brexiter: The ordinary hard line Brexiter is just as unhappy as true to form he just can´t understand. Leave and tell the EU to sod off.
3. Ordinary Leaver: Next we have the common or garden Leaver who is now extremely unhappy that what he thought he voted for turned out to be a number of options that nobody seems to be able to agree upon. The whole thing exarcerbated by Project Fear warnings now turning into reality.
4. Bregretters: Honest version of 3.
5. Got over it Remainer: Prepared to compromise and stay in Customs Union and Single Market. Not happy with the way things are going and fearing that the whole mess could end up in a Hard Brexit.
6. Hard Remainer: Definitely not happy about the Referendum itself i.e. the exclusions of certain groups, the metamorphosis from advisory to ”will of the people” that must be respected despite an embarrassingly slight majority contra normal democratic procedure. Angry at politicians both Labour and Tories playing the party game and not as Remainers see it putting their country first.
7. The Tories: Fighting like ferrets in a sack.
8. Labour: Large majority of Labour voters (young) favour staying in the EU. Corbyn (old) does not. A quieter version of 7.
9. The EU: Wondering where all this will end like watching a dear friend once an influential partner succumb to a sickness that Europe thought it had vaccinated out of existence.
10. Theresa May: This Prime Minister´s present situation and the quality of her leadership remind me of a very silly joke from my younger days: A man is walking down the street and spots a pile of dog shit on the pavement. He is about to go past it yet hesitates, ”it looks like dog shit,” he says then bends down putting his nose closer, ”it smells like dog shit,” then after poking his finger into it and discovering that it tasted like dog shit happily exclaiming, ”I´m glad I didn’t step in it.”

Happy New Year everyone and don´t forget to #FBPE

 

Månader har förflutit och Torypartiets flitigt använda stridsrop ”stark och stabil” skulle anses vara föga passande som varumärke för den Brittiska regeringens förhandlingsinsatser den senaste tiden. Om förhandling nu skulle vara ett passande uttryck för det som med sina många kovändningar blir mer förvirrande för varje dag. Premiärminister Theresa Mays uttalade strävan efter en ”djup och speciell” relation till EU ter sig allt mer svårfångad. De övriga 27 EU länderna har via sin chefsförhandlare Michel Barnier ställt tre villkor eller röda linjer: den så kallade skilsmässoräkningen, medborgarrättigheterna och gränsen mellan Nordirland och den Irländska Republiken. Dessa tre röda linjer innehåller inga konkreta krav annat än att dessa frågor måste lösas på ett tillfredställande sätt innan förhandlingarna om framtida handelsavtal kommer att påbörjas. Denna inställning har lett till en utdragen process och tiden rinner iväg efter att den brittiska regeringen åberopade utträdesartikel 50 och därmed, tillsynes helt oförberett, startade det tvååriga stoppuret till Brexitdatumet.
Vare sig det handlar om barnens läggtider eller Brexit finns det några viktiga utgångspunkter vid förhandling. 1. Man bör veta vad man vill. 2. Man bör veta, förstå och hålla sig till sina begränsningar, läs röda linjer. 3. Man bör ha en beredskap för olika kompromisser. Det är just i dessa frågor hela den brittiska regeringens problem ligger och roten till allt detta kan lätt spåras till en tämligen meningslös fråga i folkomröstningen för ett år sedan. Frågan ”Bör United Kingdom förbli medlem av den Europeiska Unionen eller lämna den Europeiska Unionen?” var tydlig. Lika tydligt skulle ett svar ”stanna i EU” ha varit. Svaret ”lämna EU” har däremot orsakat kaos och de konservativa Tories en del huvudvärk. Mycket tyder på att detta svar var oväntat.
Om jag övervägde att säga upp mitt medlemskap i en förening eller golfklubb skulle jag inte vara ensam om att förstå konsekvenserna av detta som tex. att inte längre behöva betala medlemsavgiften. Krav på att fortsättningsvis åtnjuta klubbens faciliteter eller spela på banan skulle mötas med förvåning om inte hån. Icke så med Brexit. Plötsligt betyder ”lämna” så många olika saker och stor vikt fästes vid att få en bra överenskommelse som säkrar så många förmåner som möjligt. Osökt dyker frågan upp varför man överhuvudtaget lämnar när nu folkomröstningen var rådgivande och inte bindande.
Det börjar dock klarna att en bra överenskommelse för Storbrittanien som icke medlem men med tillgång till den gemensamma marknaden m.m skulle kräva eftergifter i frågor som bl.a fri rörlighet för medborgare. Detta blir möjligen som att blanda vatten i sin whisky och sedan hävda att man inte längre dricker alkohol. Ett låtsas Brexit med andra ord; ett scenario där Storbrittanien abdikerar från den politiska scenen i fråga om medlemskap och därmed förlorar möjligheten att påverka EU lagstiftningen. Detta riskerar att resultera i ett EU med större inflytande över Storbritannien än innan Brexit.
Förståeligt nog är inte detta en överenskommelse som inbitna EU motståndare, Brexiters som de kallas på hemmaplan, skulle vara särskilt glada över. Det brittiska näringslivet skulle möjligtvis finna detta acceptabelt under en övergångsperiod men utöver det är det svårt att se denna lösning som en hållbar framtid för landet. Som bäst skulle en sådan överenskommelse vara om den kopplades till överläggningar rörande tiden efter Brexit. Åter till EU:s röda linjer som tack vare ett hastigt utlösande av artikel 50 har blivit ett ”Moment 22”. Samtliga tre röda linjer är i sitt innersta väsen kopplade till den omtalade ”speciella och djupa relationen” och även om dessa är öppna frågor kan de näppeligen lösas utan att avslöja vilken status Storbrittanien kommer att ha efter Brexit.
Efter det att Theresa May utlöste ett extra val 2017 har det nordirländska partiet DUP en vågmästarroll i parlamentet sedan Torypartiet förlorade sin majoritet. Sannolikheten att Storbrittaniens chefsförhandlare David Davis eller Theresa May hittar en lösning som blidkar EU, högerfalangen i Torypartiet och inte minst DUP, är närmast obefintlig. I detta scenario tornar två, tidigare nästan otänkbara, alternativ upp. Båda två skulle kunna ses, åtminstone kortsiktigt, som snabba lösningar.
En ”no deal” eller ingen överenskommelse överhuvudtaget som även beskrivs som att Storbrittanien kraschar ut ur EU är för många det underförstådda svaret som folkomröstningen gav. Detta må vara hänt men vid en analys av vilken information detta svar baserades på, väljarnas föreställningar om vad ”lämna EU” betyder samt de närmast katastrofliknande ekonomiska och politiska konsekvenserna finns det lite som talar för att detta skulle vara ”folkets vilja”. Om denna ”no deal” någon gång hade varit ett alternativ skulle Theresa May inte redan har vacklat i en del frågor som tex. skilsmässoräkningen och den europeiska domstolens överhöghet på vissa områden.
Numera pekar många saker på att en ”no Brexit” skulle kunna vara en möjlighet både juridiskt och politiskt. EU lämnar dörren öppen under tiden allt högljuddare protester hörs om Brexits negativa effekter. Ironiskt nog ju mer skada den brittiska ekonomin lider innan utträdesdatumet i mars 2019, desto större sannolikhet att Brexit avbryts men med mindre politisk skada när allmänheten inser innebördan av de två ovannämnda alternativen. Att återkalla artikel 50 skulle befria Storbrittanien från Brexitmardrömmen som folkomröstningen försatte landet i men det vore förhastat att tala om en snabb lösning. Opinionen i landet är splittrad och även med en mera insiktsfull förståelse av landets relation till EU skulle förbittringen och känslan av att någon hade skjutit nationalikonen, lejonet och den mytologiska enhörningen, finnas kvar hos många. Theresa May skulle inte längre vara av intresse, i bästa fall någon man tycker synd om. Det konservativa Torypartiet, befläckat av bl.a utrikesminister Boris Johnsons, snällt uttryckt, irrationella beteende och den katastrofala hanteringen av hela Brexit processen, skulle behöva en omdaning. Ett ”no Brexit” skulle bespara Storbritannien den ekonomiska skärseld som många varnar för. Behovet av reformer inom ekonomi och utbildning för att förbättra levnadsvillkoren för många människor kvarstår.
Oppositionen i form av Jeremy Corbyns Labourparti avvaktar och med medvind i opinionssiffrorna lovar att de minsann skulle lyckas att förhandla fram ”en Brexit för de många inte de få.” Det är dock många som inte förstår hur det ska gå till.

Months have gone by and ”strong and stable”, once the battle cry of the Tories, would be singularly misplaced as a trade mark for this  government´s negotiating stance. In fact if negotiating is indeed the correct word for something that is becoming more farcical every day. The quest for Theresa May´s ”deep and special relationship” with the EU is becoming more and more elusive. The 27 members of the EU have drawn up three red lines via their chief negotiator Michel Barnier. The so called divorce bill, citizen´s rights and the Irish border. These red lines being not in the form of concrete proposals but a statement that these issues must be satisfactorily resolved before negotiations on anything else can begin. In taking this approach the EU is showing an unwillingness to put itself into a situation that could easily get out of hand at a later stage and result in some undesirable consequences. Unpreparedly rushing into Article 50 as the British government did, should be warning enough.

The basics of successful negotiating are rather simple. You should: 1.Know what you want.  2.Thoroughly understand and stick to your red lines.  3.Have  a list of various acceptable compromises. This is really where the problem lies and the root of that problem is easily traced back to an inane question in the referendum a year ago. In itself the question was quite clear, as would a ”Remain” answer have been . ”Leave” on the other hand has caused quite a gaffufel underlining the theory it was an unexpected answer and has given rise to a few Tory headaches.

If somebody asked me if I ever thought of leaving my golf club, I would not be alone in understanding the consequences of such a decision e.g not having to pay the annual fees. Feigning surprise at suddenly not enjoying the club´s facilities nor being able to play the course would simply invite derision. Not so with the UK. Suddenly, leaving meant so many different things and great importance was attached to getting a ”good deal” to retain as many benefits as possible. Why leave in the first place you might ask?  It is becoming crystal clear though, amongst all the fudge, that a ”good deal” for Britain as a non member and one acceptable to the EU would be akin to watering your whisky and proudly exclaiming you don´t drink alcohol anymore. Much like a ”pretend Brexit.” In fact a scenario involving political abdication concerning membership, meaning no influence on EU lawmaking, might even result in the EU having more influence on the UK than before Brexit.

Understandably this kind of deal is not something your common or garden Brexiter would be over the moon about not to mention the Tory rabid right. From a business point of view this might be acceptable over a transition period but more than that it can hardly have appeal to anyone. At best it might be considered a reasonably good deal if coupled to talks on ”where do we go post transition” Now we are back to the EU´s three red lines. There will be no trade talks until the big three are resolved.  This is the Catch 22 that came as a result of hastily and arrogantly invoking Article 50. All three red lines are intrinsically coupled to the post Brexit ”deep and special relationship” and even though they are open-minded red lines they cannot be solved without revealing the nature of that relationship during transition and after. The likelihood of David Davis or Theresa May finding a solution acceptable to the EU, the Tory right-wing and the, key to the door, DUP are least said slight. With a ”good deal” not being within grasp, it boils down to Donald Tusk´s last two alternatives. Both might be considered quick fixes, at least in the short term.

The one a ”no deal,”  also referred to as the UK crashing out of the EU, is to many the answer that was implicit in the referendum. That may be so but analysing the information that answer was based on and the catastrophic economic and political consequences for the UK, there is little conviction in the argument that this is ”the will of the people.” If this ”no deal” was at anytime an alternative then Theresa May would have stood by her red lines concerning the budget bill, controlling immigration and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Last but not least ”no Brexit.” All things point to the possibility of this being an option, both legally and politically. The irony here is that the more damage the economy suffers before March 2019  the greater the likelihood of a ”no Brexit” yet also resulting in less domestic political damage as people begin to understand the ramifications of Donald Tusk´s first two alternatives. Revoking Article 50 will extricate the UK from the nightmare that the result of the referendum plunged the country into.  Much will be on track again but it will definitely not be a quick fix. The country is divided and even with a changed mood there will be resentment and a feeling that somebody shot the Unicorn. Theresa May will no longer be of interest, at best pitied. The Tory party, sullied by the likes of Boris Johnson who profess patriotism yet exhibit the opposite will need a makeover.  The ”no Brexit” UK  will no longer be facing economic purgatory but will have to do more to improve peoples lives, re-distribute income and put the disgusting tabloids and xenophobia in their place using the tools of economics, information and education. The world will stop laughing when the Brexit joke is over but never fear, like Suez, it will not be forgotten. Jeremy Corbyn talks about a ”Brexit for the many not the few.”

There is no such thing Jeremy but there is a ”No Brexit for the many not the few.”

Things are rapidly beginning to change. The enfant terrible of British politics has spent the summer months ensuring that nobody forgets just that. First by exclaiming that the EU can whistle for its money as the UK will not be sending a single Pound their way, not to mention a Euro;  then to undermining Theresa May´s Brexit gambit in the form of a previously announced game changing speech, by publishing a policy dictating article in the Daily Telegraph days before the speech. Theresa May´s speech held at the church of Santa Maria Novella, lovely name considering, had a great deal less substance than could be hoped for. Her words had little effect on EU officialdom most of whom were not in attendance anyway, despite a cautious leaving the door ajar for further constructive dialogue by conceding that Britain is actually prepared to settle some form of divorce settlement.

As far as the negotiations are concerned the speech added very little to moving anything forward to the, from a UK point of view very much desired, talks on future trading relations. What it did confirm however was that the Prime Minister was publicly leaving her position outlined in the Lancaster House speech including the ”no deal is better than a bad deal” and accepting that it is in the interests of the UK to come to some sort of arrangement even including a financial divorce settlement. Even with transition being the word of the day whatever flavour of Brexit other than a hard or cliff edge Brexit will mean accepting, in the short term more likely the long term, conditions that are anathema to a Tory Brexiter. Freedom of movement and the European Court of Justice are just two things that are inseparable from the single market which most people now concede is inseparable from the idea of a future prosperous UK.

Theresa May in her new approach to the whole Brexit process clearly backed away from the ”no deal is better than a bad deal” whilst putting her party in roughly the same Brexit muddle as Labour. She did however not mince words when it came to appeasing Brexiters, claiming the UK had never felt at home in Europe. Her unfortunate choice of words although not entirely believable considering her earlier Remain standpoint, painfully shows her inability to grasp the essence of successful leadership. Appeasing those in favour of something by ridiculing or insulting those who are not, results in a longterm lack of respect from all concerned.

I wouldn’t be the first to say that the UK´s current situation is in the main due to bad Tory leadership. On the other hand should there be another election we are far from guaranteed of getting  a Labour Prime Minister with more expertise on the subject, more like out of the frying pan…. What with the present Prime Minister doing her level best to exclude Parliament in whatever way possible and the Leader of the Opposition a maybe future Prime Minister stifling debate at the latest Labour Party Congress on the most vital question facing the UK since the second world war, one might wonder.

The irony is that Jeremy Corbyn sees the EU as a capitalist club standing in the way of true socialism and his view would seem to be that Brexit must be carried through to remove this encumbrance allowing the necessary political room to achieve his goal. The Tory right are in full agreement with Corbyn concerning this obstacle and also that EU legislation restricts their own political freedom albeit to the far right. What the man in the street means by ”we want our sovrinnty back” is anyone´s guess and it is more likely than not that he would feel extremely uncomfortable if he kew that the far right and the far left of British politics do not have his sovereignty in mind. Unfortunately for our two popular factions Brexit is not going well and there is an increasing awareness of there being ulterior motives when the promised mother of all firework displays turns out to be a damp squib. I might add that politicians who tell me an economic union covering over 40 years of successful co-operation can be ditched, replaced and surpassed in under 2 years should start working on their CVs; for cluelessness or cynicism, you choose.  Suddenly its all about damage control and we won’t be worse off. The fact that the far right and the far left have a similar anti EU agenda paints a clear picture putting the EU in a place I think most of us would prefer to be in.

Well, every cloud has a silver lining and somewhere between the two Cs, cynical and clueless lies the answer. This just cannot go on for much longer. A hard Brexit is off the cards as it lacks sufficient electoral support and a soft Brexit is nothing but a pretend Brexit. Not withstanding May and Corbyn, Brexit is dead and all that is required now is a signature on the death certificate. In my opinion it´s a toss up whether Parliament or a referendum on the final deal will do the signing. Whatever, I do believe Boris can go whistle for his Brexit.

Not exactly as  there has been an awful lot of quacking these last few weeks although nobody has actually managed to lay an egg yet.

The mood however is definitely changing, as people, the political establishment not excluded, have begun to realise the economic and political effects any sort of Brexit will have on the UK. Understanding this is one thing, admitting an understanding of this publicly is a clear indication that something is happening. When the Daily Mail headlines read that Brexiteers have lost the economic argument it makes you think.  I dare say anybody who is at all aware of the UK´s political position contra Europe is aware that the situation the country is in at the moment, is not only one of history´s greatest shambles but also an extremely serious one. It is bad leadership that got us into this and we are now in the process of watching that selfsame leadership struggle to find a way out. Now if you feel I am being unnecessarily harsh on Tory leadership then let me say my argument is underlined by the fact that they are actually trying to find a way out of this mess. Both the referendum and the 2017 election had more to do with Tory infighting and their inability to govern the country than anything else. Neither Cameron nor May got the answer they wanted and it became painfully obvious that they were both very surprised and totally unprepared. To add insult to injury neither of these electoral responses gave a clear indication of the path forward, that is if you discount the loony right´s wet dream of a tax paradise and the loony left´s ditto of a socialist paradise in the form of a total break with the EU i.e. a Hard Brexit or Cliff Edge Brexit. As if either of these would be guaranteed by a Brexit. The ball is, so to speak, fair and square back in the Tory court. What we are now witnessing is a struggle to set things straight. Given that this entails leaving the EU enough to appease Brexiters, not too much to upset the economic apple cart, keep an open border with the Republic of Ireland, pay enough divorce settlement to satisfy the EU without goading Brexiters and do all this without being accused by the EU of cherry picking, this exercise cannot be deemed as anything but futile. Again I shudder to think that Tory politicians are unaware of this and yet again it seems to me this futile struggling is all that is on offer in place of real leadership. If the question is, do the Tories need real leadership, the answer must be that whatever happens the party is at the end of its tether and will probably need years to recover. It is the UK that needs real leadership and at present it is the Tory party´s responsibility to unconditionally supply that leadership. There is no other way out of this than by admitting failure. That is not failure to leave the EU but failure to lead the country along the best possible path taking into consideration the wishes of its people. Admitting this and inhibiting Brexit would not be a U-turn but an admission of failure showing the kind of leadership the country is very much in need of right now.