I don’t know what has happened but…

I do not know what has happened but it is wonderful, I think. It is almost, 99% the May Deal, but over 90% of the original Withdrawal Agreement was bland and innocuous anyway. There are problems, substantial problems, at least during the Transition Period. Still, it gets us out of the door.

This was also the day that the PM was meant to write the Benn letter requesting an extension of the exit date, accompanied no doubt by another saying “I don’t actually mean it, chaps”, and it was the day Jean Claude Juncker said an extension was not available. Goodness knows.

It’s been Boris’s night: all the journalists are lauding his achievement – even those who usually hate him (because he is a journalist himself, but a columnist not a newshound). It proves that he was right to Believe in the Bin.

The pundits who said that the EU would never shift are eating their words, although to be fair they have not moved much.

Now it is on to Parliament. As all might predict, Labour are determined to vote against the deal because they would never vote for anything proposed by a Tory government – they who have wailed loudly against the evils of ‘no deal’ will vote for ‘no deal’, and the excuses are telling: Jeremy Corbyn said at the announcement that he would oppose it because it allows deregulation, and allows American companies to invest in Britain. Erm, Jeremy, freedom and investment are actually good things. On QT tonight another identikit angry Labour MPess was saying it is because the deal allows Parliament to reduce working rights. Try playing that on the doorstep of the patriotic working man: we must be subject to a foreign power because our elected Parliament might not do what Jeremy wants. The LibDems, well, they do not work on reason any more, which is a sad come-down from the party of Gladstone. It could be very tight.

As to Ulster, the new Protocol needs careful examination, and another article.

Another question to ask is what happens if the Commons reject the new deal, as they may well do. One suggestion is that the vote will be worded as a binary ‘approve this deal or approve no deal’, but the Speaker may find a way to stop that: he’s creative like that. We still have two weeks to go as well. If it fails it might be brought again with changes to win the DUP over, and with them the Spartans, if they are still fighting Thermopylae against the deal.

If nothing is passed, and that means presumably that Section 13 cannot be repealed either, and it is not deemed to be an approval of no-deal, then can the government hold out for a fortnight to get over the line without another act of parliamentary treason? Maybe, and then Section 13 of the Withdrawal Act is gone and a post-withdrawal agreement can be signed without bothering Parliament. Even Labour might sigh in relief at that, preventing a no-deal exit without their having to dirty their hands.

We shall see soon enough.

See also

Books

Of Crimes, Excuses, and Extenuations

Again, if we compare crimes by the mischief of their effects; first, the same fact when it redounds to the damage of many is greater than when it redounds to the hurt of few.  And therefore when a fact hurteth, not only in the present, but also by example in the future, it is a greater crime than if it hurt only in the present:  for the former is a fertile crime, and multiplies to the hurt of many; the latter is barren.  To maintain doctrines contrary to the religion established in the Commonwealth is a greater fault in an authorised preacher than in a private person:  so also is it to live profanely, incontinently, or do any irreligious act whatsoever.

Likewise in a professor of the law, to maintain any point, or do any act, that tendeth to the weakening of the sovereign power is a greater crime than in another man:  also in a man that hath such reputation for wisdom as that his counsels are followed, or his actions imitated by many, his fact against the law is a greater crime than the same fact in another:  for such men not only commit crime, but teach it for law to all other men.  And generally all crimes are the greater by the scandal they give; that is to say, by becoming stumbling-blocks to the weak, that look not so much upon the way they go in, as upon the light that other men carry before them.

Also facts of hostility against the present state of the Commonwealth are greater crimes than the same acts done to private men:  for the damage extends itself to all:  such are the betraying of the strengths or revealing of the secrets of the Commonwealth to an enemy; also all attempts upon the representative of the Commonwealth, be it a monarch or an assembly; and all endeavours by word or deed to diminish the authority of the same, either in the present time or in succession:  which crimes the Latins understand by crimina laesae majestatis, and consist in design, or act, contrary to a fundamental law. Likewise those crimes which render judgements of no effect are greater crimes than injuries done to one or a few persons; as to receive money to give false judgement or testimony is a greater crime than otherwise to deceive a man of the like or a greater sum; because not only he has wrong, that falls by such judgements, but all judgements are rendered useless, and occasion ministered to force and private revenges.

Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan; Chapter XXVII

See also:

Books

Eschatological Rebellion

What makes a respectable, wealthy, middle class, middle-aged woman climb up and try to smash a window in a government ministry? What brings more white, middle class academics and children of professionals on to the street to block the traffic, vandalise buildings and run countercultural camps in the streets? It is not the environment.

The end of the world! There were once eccentric men walking the streets with placards announcing “The End of the World is Nigh!”, and how we chuckled at them; now they wear beads and flypost ominous stickers on the Tube. I would laugh, but they are scaring children half to death with their unhinged eschatology.

If your stomach was turned by some of the displays available on YouTube it may be the sight of people dressed up as hippies or students doing ‘interpretive dance’ in the street or tents with signs for mindfulness sessions. That tells you more about us outside, really. It is a culture-clash: these are the people we do not want to be like, and we are the people they do not like because we do not appreciate their way of thinking.

(There is nothing wrong with interpretive dance on the street – in fact it is positive as it identifies the people I can ignore.)

Extinction Rebellion is wrong in just about everything they stand for. Having made that point, I have to look at the attraction they have for many, and why there is anger when I every doubt them.

The cause they claim is saving the world; every comic-book hero’s quest, and who can doubt that? It is what we are brought up with. We try to ignore the incongruity when Batman destroys a city just to save a girl, because he is just a comic fantasy, and so is Extinction Rebellion’s rhetoric.

So what makes a respectable, wealthy, middle class, middle-aged woman climb up and try to smash a window in a government ministry? That answers itself – the stifling social constraints of respectability. Bursting out of the constraints, liberation like a fly escaping from a bottle – that is what it is all about. There are hammers and spraypaint and free-form dance, and at least the latter harms no one. That ever-present voice inside says ‘settle down, be good, do your homework’;, but then a new ideology is available that says ‘all those things you never dared to do – do them!’

The rest of us look askance at the chaos that denies our learnt, ordered pattern of the world, but maybe with a hint of jealousy.

The odd thing is though that this gathering of thousands of likeminded or easily misled souls is itself a quest for respectability.

There are others. There are grannies suddenly finding a purpose for their time. There are junior clergymen losing their purpose. There are academics from ex-polytechnics with books and little imagination, resigned never to rise to the height that demands actual intellect. They are powerless, and here they find some semblance of power. Their works will never be cited at Oxford, but here their voice can be heard for a moment, whatever unscientific rhubarb they speak, and if they can persuade the government to act, as they sincerely desire, then that is power indeed. No wonder they respond so viciously when doubted: we are stealing their last chance for power.

For the rest of us, who may be doing more for the benefit of mankind and its environment than the whole parcel of the ‘XR’ mob, this is an annoyance to be cleared up like any other. What to do about it – that must be another article.

See also:

Books

Brexit moment 1714

Britain was at the moment when a great change, believed to be settled some years earlier, might be overturned. It would only take a little push, and all those years of effort, and the confidence in peace, would be cast down. Freedom was in peril, a foreign power across the Channel waited, social and political unrest could break out. The nation was on edge. The year was 1714.

The Settlement to end the crisis

The healing peace of King Charles II’s reign was followed by three years’ turmoil and the Revolution of 1688, as I recalled in a previous article. The settlement of 1688 was solid in establishing the balance of authority and rights, but fragile as King William and Queen Mary were childless and the hopes of the nation rested on Mary’s sister Anne, who was fertile indeed.  However although she was almost constantly pregnant, Anne lost all but one of her children in childbirth or infancy. In 1700, Anne lost her one surviving child at the age of 11: she was the last Protestant of the House of Stuart and now she was a dead-end. At her passing, Anne’s deposed father would cross the Channel again and reverse the revolution.

There was time yet – the King and Parliament looked for an heir and found that the nearest Protestant heirs had inexplicably turned Papist, so they turned to a granddaughter of King James I, Sophie of Hanover, and the Act of Settlement was passed in 1701 to settle the succession on her. King James II died in exile in the same year, but was succeeded by a son, born the year of the Revolution, bred a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic and looking to reclaim his father’s throne. William died a few months later and Anne succeeded to the throne.

Queen Anne

Queen Anne was a popular queen (and was nothing like her portrayal by Olivia Coleman).  She achieved the union between her two realms and presided over a flowering of culture.  Hers though was a barren throne with no son to succeed her.

All surely was settled by the Act of Settlement?  An Act though is only as strong as the next election and the willingness of the establishment to uphold it.

By 1713 the Queen was ailing.  Those who supported the exiled king and his line, the Jacobites, had been quiescent while his daughters and his son-in-law sat on the throne, but as the end of their line approached, they began to move.  Suddenly the issues of the Revolution and even of the Civil War all those years ago were appearing again.

Queen Anne’s own thoughts are uncertain: she refused to allow her Hanoverian cousins to move to Great Britain, but we cannot know if that was to avoid an intimation of mortality or because she had sympathy with the idea of letting her half-brother’s succeed her, or if it was her Tory ministers who insisted on it.

The government and the Commons were dominated by Tories and the leading Tories were certainly playing both sides. It is known that there were contacts across the Channel. The War of the Spanish Succession was ended precipitously to make a rapprochement with France and Louis XIV. Harley and Bolingbroke were both in contact with the Jacobites and Bolingbroke had even met the Pretender in person. Outwardly they stood for the Settlement and the Hanoverian succession, but they were open to renouncing their pledges to the people and handing the Crown to the young James Edward Stuart.  If only James would renounce the Church of Rome and become Protestant, then the Tories in Parliament would most likely have repealed the Act of Settlement at once.  They also knew that as soon as the new Hanoverian monarch succeeded, they would be out of office and the Whigs would supplant them, and this, ambition for office, outweighed in some the public good.

The Settlement was looking very fragile indeed.

1714

In 1714, there was an alehouse in Stamford known as The George Tap, which was kept by a Mr Bolton, who had Jacobite sympathies.  The Jacobites had a custom of drinking to the Queen kneeling and bareheaded, which was a harmless defiance, but these were not normal days.  A dragoon was in The Tap, and when he saw Bolton on his knees and uncovered; his anger burst forth – he drew his sword and ran the man through.  A riot broke out, a mob surrounded the house and threatened to tear it down unless the soldier were handed over to them – he fled through the back gate.

The nation was on edge.  The little, bloody vignette in Stamford was just one eruption amongst the dramas played out up and down the land. Parliament had pledged to the Hanoverian succession, and spoken for it, both sides, but they were not trusted: the Tories were suspected of playing both sides and they were, or at least some were.

In June, the Electress Sophie of Hanover died; the heir was now George Louis of Hanover, one step further from the Stuart House.

On 29 July, Queen Anne was on her deathbed: this was the moment on which all would turn. The Queen realised it and acted:  she dismissed Harley and the next day appointed the Duke of Shrewsbury as Lord Treasurer; effectively as prime minister. Shrewsbury had been instrumental in the overthrow of James II and so was to be relied upon to support the Settlement. Two days later the Queen was dead and Shrewsbury held supreme power, and he ensured that the Settlement was honoured, and that King George succeeded peacefully.

It was a month and a half before the new King arrived in London, and he was a hated foreigner, but he was received and took the throne.

There were riots on the day of the coronation and the next year a rebellion was put down in the Highlands, and other risings that were snuffed out before they began. The Hanoverian succession and the rights enshrined in the settlement of 1688 were secured, but it all turned on a moment at the Queen’s death-bed.

Books

Tempestuous climate on QT

What a show – it was horrible. The panel was more balanced on last night’s Question Time than it used to be, and the fur flew.  Before the end, I had to turn off – it was too painful.  The main issue this week was Extinction Rebellion:  for the panel included Rupert Read of that distinguished band of vandals.

On the panel, presided over loosely by Fiona Bruce, were Grant Shapps, speaking for the Conservatives but increasingly acting as the only voice of reason that evening; Lisa Nandy of Labour, who became increasingly detached from any semblance of reality as the evening wore on; Rupert Read of Extinction Rebellion, of whom more later but who made even Lisa Nandy look reasonable; Theo Paphitis as the voice of the frustrated rest-of-us; and Julia Hartley-Brewer, the rent-a-mouth whose sole virtue is being able to expose hypocrisy by being rude to everyone else.

We kicked off with the environment, climate change, and the actions of Extinction Rebellion, and voices rose to fever pitch such that you might imagine the rise in global temperature was solely caused by the Question Time panel. There is no logic in debate anymore. No one on the panel was arguing for climate change being a fantasy or unimportant. No one was arguing against its being hastened by mankind, so you would have thought all would be sweetness and light. It was the very opposite.

Maybe it would have been easier if they could just have said to Read that he is a nutcase and taking such complete nonsense it is only a surprise that he does not laugh at himself, but instead this was in form a civil debate, and as a result it turned into a shouting match.

It takes a lot for me to be on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s side, but she made the unchallengeable point (which Grant Shapps missed) that the Industrial Revolution was the greatest and most beneficial thing ever to happen to mankind.  It is a pity that the point could not be taken further, to analyse the anti-industrial rhetoric of Extinction Rebellion, to compare their (unscientific) protest that millions, or even billions, will be killed by climate change with the utter certainty that millions would die of disease and starvation were the Industrial Revolution to be reversed anywhere in the world.  Again Hartley-Brewer nailed it with her characteristically undiplomatic approach, that Extinction Rebellion is a “quasi-religious death cult”.

Rupert Read believes himself, which is worrying. He said that he wants the government to start by’ telling the truth’, but every statement he made was wrong, and he must have known it. When Grant Shapps demonstrated that Britain has cut carbon dioxide emissions mare than any other country, Read said the figures were fiddled (they are not); he made wild claims on what ‘the science’ says which bore no relation to any scientific papers; he said that no one was talking about acting on climate change until the Extinction Rebellion began – somehow ignoring decades of work and public concern on the subject, begun incidentally by Margaret Thatcher.  ‘XR’ must have a point, he said, because they are invited onto QT: well so was Nick Griffin of the BNP, mate. His knock-down proof of the rightness of Extinction Rebellion was that a sixteen year-old, traumatised autistic girl supports them. He even compared himself to the suffragettes and Martin Luther King.  There is delusion there of the highest order.

Even so, Read was cheered from the audience, which he took as validation. The audience may indeed care about the future of the environment – don’t we all – but does not mean accepting every contradictory madness proposed by his cult.  After that I was not convinced by Julia Harley-Brewer’s description: there is nothing ‘quasi’ about their religion.

We were also introduced to Lisa Nandy, a Labour Party star – she has been tipped for leadership. Please put her on television more – she discredits herself and her party wonderfully. She castigated Hartley-Brewer on the environmental issue (don’t feed the troll, Lisa) saying that environmental catastrophe would harm the value of pension funds – but somehow omitted to say how sudden deindustrialisation, or Corbyn, would not.

It was a relief to get off climate change, and the climate in the studio could cool.  Of course the next topic was Brexit, for some light relief.

On Brexit, out came Lisa Nandy, coming into her own.  She accused Boris Johnson of junking a deal with the EU:  she insisted that there was a deal agreed but somehow it had never been allowed to go before parliament. Well, the rest of the country know perfectly well that there was a deal, for we have memories going back more than five minutes, and that it was put before the Commons three times and each time Nandy and her colleagues voted against it. Challenged on this by Grant Shapps, she claimed there was another deal agreed by all parties (presumably known only unto her and not to the government nor the EU) which was not put.  This was fantasy. Just repeating the same untruth again and again makes enough people believe it to vote, but it is horrid to watch except in morbid fascination.

At that point, Rupert Read came back in with his one good point of the evening:  Brexit, deal or no deal, is not the end which will allow us to get back to normal politics: from that point the Government must start negotiating more trade deals with the EU, so it goes on. It sounded a bit odd after he had just been castigating all and sundry for using ships, aircraft and lorries – surely he would want a complete, self-sufficient autarky to keep those environmentally harmful ships in port?

With no sign of reality breaking out from anyone but Theo Paphitis and Grant Shapps, I finally gave up.

See also

Books