The EU is like the intimate portion of canine anatomy: it locks a member in and holds on tight.
Tempting though it may be to expand this simile, I’ll just repeat what I’ve said before. The main problem with the EU isn’t that it’s undemocratic but that it’s evil.
A political structure doesn’t have to murder millions to justify such a description. It’s enough that it should be built on wicked principles and propped up by wicked practices.
Vindicating this observation, the EU, abetted by quislings in the national governments, has so far been able to reverse every referendum that has gone against it. Each time it acted like a stern teacher telling a hapless pupil to think again: “You got it wrong, Johnny. Keep doing it until you get it right.”
As far as the EU is concerned, British voters got it wrong when voting to leave. They must be made to think again, and federasts are banging their heads together to find the best way.
The simplest way would be to repeat for the umpteenth time that referendum results aren’t legally binding. So thank you, Mr Voter. We’ll take your concerns into account when working out an improved arrangement with the EU.
Alas, such a straightforward approach would be politically suicidal, and the idea of killing their own careers is repugnant to our ‘leaders’. More subtlety is required.
Thus we’ve always been told that leaving the EU takes a lot of planning, negotiations, renegotiations, horse trading and whatnot. Those things take time; one can’t rush into decisions headlong.
Fair enough. But how much time? How long before we activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty? What are the reasons for not doing so immediately?
Here one is reminded to one’s chagrin that the top two positions in HMG are occupied by Mrs May and Mr Hammond who both supported remaining. It’s not therefore inconceivable that they may be assisting the EU’s efforts to keep Britain locked in its womb.
The noises they’re making add weight to such suspicions. Specifically, we’re told that we must wait until the French and German elections to invoke Article 50. “You can’t negotiate when you don’t know who you’re negotiating with” is the party line.
But this is nonsense. First, since we’re leaving the EU and not France or Germany, their electoral shenanigans shouldn’t make any difference. We’ll be negotiating with EU institutions, mainly the Commission, which isn’t subject to electoral vagaries for the simple reason that it’s unelected in the first place.
Second, invoking Article 50 doesn’t mean a summary exit or immediate negotiations. It only means that HMG is formally notifying the EU of its decision to leave. Negotiations start after that, to be concluded within two years. Since bureaucratic procedures always extend to the outer limit of the time available, should we invoke Article 50 now, we won’t actually leave until autumn, 2018.
This seems to be sufficient time to negotiate the details – and to staff the Whitehall departments set up for this purpose. Such departments don’t have to be at full strength to extend the notification. However, if they’re as desperately understaffed as they claim, I’m hereby offering my pro bono services in drafting the appropriate text:
“Her Majesty’s Government wishes to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, thereby notifying the European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from membership in that organisation.”
Job done. However, a proverbial highly placed source is claiming that: “Ministers are now thinking the [Article 50] trigger could be delayed to autumn 2017. They don’t have the infrastructure for the people they need to hire. They say they don’t even know the right questions to ask when they finally begin bargaining with Europe.”
That makes our ministers even dafter than one would expect. So allow me to offer my unsolicited services yet again. Don’t ask them any questions, chaps, not at first. Just tell them we’re definitely leaving. The Q&A can wait until the nitty-gritty has to be sorted out, and even that should be done from a position of strength, not supplication.
Otherwise people might think that HMG is trying to soft-pedal Brexit until it topples into the ditch. For three years is a longer time in politics than even Harold Wilson’s infamous week. A lot can happen.
Here’s one plausible scenario. It’s probable, nay guaranteed, that we’ll have a recession during that period. This will have nothing to do with Brexit but everything to do with the nature of our economy, which is an Origami arrangement spun out of the printing press.
When this comes about, economically literate people may scream themselves hoarse proving that the recession has happened not because of Brexit but in spite of it. They’ll be easily outshouted by the we-told-you-so chorus of Remainers.
Brexit, they’ll say, shouldn’t be a millstone around our necks. The people are allowed to change their mind. After all, Brexit is human, Breversal divine.
The only way to avoid this likely development is to compress the time our governing spivs have at their disposal. So let’s take to the streets and march (peacefully!) through Whitehall, shouting “Invoke Article 50 now!” Or, better still, “Let my people go!”