Decision Time for Theresa

Whatever you might think of her politics or personality, there’s no denying Theresa May’s tenacity and dogged determination. So far she’s confounded all the doomsayers who prophesised that the Brexit talks would never get this far. Predictions of Jeremy Corbyn celebrating Christmas in Number 10 have vanished from more than one blog, and gleeful tweets about the imminent local election meltdown have been recycled into memes of mirth all across cyberspace.

Despite being a little grating and not especially charismatic, the Prime Minister has nonetheless managed to retain, and in some cases gain, the loyalty of an electorate which has come to grudgingly admire her patient if bureaucratically dull approach to an increasingly ill-tempered, intransigent and deliberately discourteous European Union.

Contrary to what the more unhinged factions of the Remainosphere might say, the Brexiteer who thought this would all be a breeze is a rare and strange beast indeed. The British electorate backed Brexit in the full knowledge that there would be more than a couple of bumps in the road as we embarked on the biggest constitutional upheaval in a generation. How could there not be?

This typically pragmatic, balanced and, yes dammit, British attitude explains why both the voters in general and the Tory Party in particular have continued to support the PM through the increasingly difficult and tortuous Brexit process.

However, with her latest and, quite frankly, downright dishonest sounding customs union fudge, the PM has finally run out of creative ways to yield ever more ground to Brussels while kicking the can down the road at the same time. It’s been a really neat trick which has served her well so far; but beneath all the noise and shiny distractions swirling around the Brexit debate, the influential European Research Group has finally delivered its considered verdict.

“Completely cretinous.”

The back benches have lost patience with Britain’s seemingly endless procession of one-way concessions. Their letters to the 1922 Committee are poised and ready. They have the numbers, they’re no longer scared of Corbyn, and I believe they mean business this time.

Soon we will know for sure whether the PM has been doing her best in good faith, or whether her talk of “no attempt to remain inside the EU [and] no attempt to re-join it via the back door” was just another carefully measured dose of duplicity made in Brussels.

At the moment, Theresa May seems to be the only person in Europe who hasn’t learned that there can be no compromise with the EU. I don’t know why she finds this concept so difficult to grasp. God knows, they’ve told us often enough.

Images courtesy of Adrian Olguin & Anja Ranneberg at Freeimages.com

Hooray for the 2nd Referendum!

It’s nice to agree with your most implacable opponents every now and then. That’s why I was especially cheered to hear Patrick Stewart’s reasoned and measured arguments as he championed the new People’s Vote movement in various television studios nearly a fortnight ago. It’s hard to deny that we’d never make different, better decisions if we could see further into the future. After all, how many of us wouldn’t want to turn back the clock and not have a particular argument, or choose a different path that didn’t lead to a dead end?

When it comes to weighty matters of state, we all cast our votes based more on hope and belief than any meaningful knowledge of the future. That inescapable truth probably explains why we’re permanently disappointed that our destination bears only a passing semblance to the exciting postcard we received. So it’s with a big dose of hindsight and a little humility that I’ve come to embrace the idea of a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. The landscape is so dramatically different and so many arguments resoundingly disproved that I can see no other alternative. We’re just not where we thought we would be.

In 1975, the UK Government’s official pamphlet informed voters that a Council of Ministers would make Europe-wide decisions. However, that competency was transferred to the unelected European Commission in 2009. The UK electorate was not consulted about this change.

In 1975, the UK Government’s official pamphlet assured voters that “no important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.” However, both the Maastricht
and Lisbon Treaties handed many important policy powers to the same unelected European Commission. The UK electorate was not consulted about this change.

In 1975, the UK Government’s official pamphlet declared that “through membership of the [Common] Market we are better able to advance and protect our national interests. This is the essence of sovereignty.” I can’t possibly speak for 17.4 million leave voters, but I’ll bet the farm that a significant majority of them believe that regaining control of UK border policy, money and laws is the true essence of sovereignty. It’s taken a little over forty years for that glib official statement to be tested in the real world and found so desperately wanting.

In 1975, the UK Government’s official pamphlet stated that Commonwealth countries would not be disadvantaged by Britain’s membership of the EEC. Yet less than two pages later, the very same leaflet states a UK voting to leave the EEC would no longer be inside the Common Market tariff wall – but outside.” The pamphlet didn’t try to explain how splitting the Commonwealth between those behind and those outside the EEC’s tariff wall was beneficial to the countries left outside. The eagerness of those same nations to embrace new trading ties with the UK shows that statement to have been utterly false, and I suspect Edward Heath and a large portion of Parliament knew it back in 1973.

Whilst some of the Government’s claims regarding the Common Market may have been accurate in 1975, an awful lot has changed in forty years. New treaties, new power structures and new laws have transformed the EEC beyond all recognition, and in the light of those radically altered conditions, it was right and proper that at long last a second referendum on EU membership took place on June 23, 2016.

Some of the more embittered remain factions highlight the fact that older voters were the deciding demographic in the referendum result, as though that somehow counts for something. Despite ridiculous and condescending claims that older voters represent a non-existent past, they are in fact the very same people who’d voted to remain in the EEC in 1975. They’d just developed a better understanding of what they were really voting for this time around. Sound familiar?

Mr Stewart and his chums at People’s Vote HQ can celebrate the fact that we’ve already had a second EU referendum. When considering new developments and changed circumstances that were unknown in 1975, the electorate has soberly and very sensibly changed its mind.

The North London, 2nd referendum set can sleep soundly knowing that democracy was well served by the 2016 vote, and they can focus on really important things like writing letters to the Guardian.

The People’s Vote of 2016 was a triumph for democracy.

Image courtesy of nwhomebuyers at FreeImages.com

Remoaners need Dr Who, not Captain Picard

So, it’s finally happened. The entrenched establishment’s last desperate gamble to thwart Brexit has cranked into life amid great fanfare, tons of publicity and a million pound budget.

Of course they don’t call it that. When questioned on their attitude to Brexit, this elitist coalition of closet authoritarians hide their disdain for democracy behind phrases like “choice”, “new information” and “the terms of divorce.” They are always, always at pains to stress just how much they respect the result of the 2016 referendum.

This is a brazen, calculated lie, and we all know it. In fact, arch luvvie and continuity remainer Patrick Stewart couldn’t even convince the BBC’s Andrew Marr of his sincerity when asked about respecting the Brexit vote. Either he wasn’t properly briefed by the “People’s Vote” campaign, or he’s decided that honesty is the best policy. Whether by accident or design, we should thank Mr Stewart for saving us all the time and trouble of trying to prize the truth from this dishonest and deceitful campaign’s lips for the next year or so.

One of the more reliable rules of politics is that any nation with the words “democratic” or “people’s” anywhere in its name should be treated with extreme caution, and the same can be said of political campaigns. Ironically enough the “people” understand this fundamental truth well enough, which is why this this last hurrah from the fading neoliberals will expend a lot of time, energy and hot air with no discernible outcome. Kind of like having a counsellor on a spaceship.

The People’s Vote is doomed.

First and foremost, because there will be no second referendum. Both Labour and the Conservatives have been clear about this. Any such proposal is extremely unlikely to make it through Parliament as both the voting public and the political class are well aware of Brussels’ long and lamentable record of re-runs when it comes to democratic votes they don’t like. Such a move would be politically impossible in the current atmosphere.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has already been triggered, and any move to reverse that decision will require a democratic mandate equal to or greater than the 2016 referendum. In the unlikely event a second referendum were to be held, it would not affect the result of the first unless that question was specifically addressed on the ballot paper.

This new and fundamentally flawed rearguard action is grounded on the false premise that any second referendum will be a direct re-run of the first, when the likelihood of such is vanishingly small. The best they can hope for is a take-it-or-leave-it vote on the final form of any future Brexit deal, but this will not affect the legal status of the Lisbon Treaty. In fact, such a plebiscite could quite conceivably lead to the “hard” Brexit they so desperately seek to overturn. The potential for backfire is a real and present danger, so hardcore remainers should be careful what they wish for.

Finally, there is also the inescapable and ironclad fact that Brexit is driven by the largest democratic mandate for anything, ever, in the long history of this nation. The ship has sailed, and there’s very little chance of stopping it now. The hard core rump of Brexit deniers would’ve done better to find a time traveller than to rely on Captain Yesterday.

Image courtesy Carol Kramberger at Freeimages.com

Our Futuristic Breadbin Brexit

What do Brexit, a loaf of bread and a high profile environmental campaign have in common? You might be tempted to answer “not very much,” but they are in fact linked by deeper, hidden forces which are currently the rise of populism and the rejection of the neoliberal world view.

It’s not often that everyday objects like a sliced white can speak so much truth, but that’s exactly what happened in the bread aisle as I endured the ritual torture of grocery shopping. I’d arrived at the supermarket earlier than planned, having fled the house after Sky News tried to force feed me another helping of environmental advocacy. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s true that the amount of plastic polluting our world is a real and pressing problem, and I for one am pleased that such a large organisation is bringing attention to this urgent and important issue.

There were films of plastic, debates about plastic and statistics surrounding plastic still rolling around in my head while I engaged in the drudgery of the supermarket shop. First stop was the fruit and veg, and I immediately recalled the apocryphal tale of four apples shrink-wrapped on a plastic tray, which is often cited as the pinnacle of ridiculous and completely unnecessary plastic packaging.* In fairness there are very few people who’d approve of such a thing in today’s more environmentally conscious climate, but still it happened once upon a time.

Then I came to the bread, and as I was loading my favourite brand into the trolley I suddenly remembered that bread was once packaged in nice neat waxed paper parcels, whereas now it’s nearly always wrapped some sort of plastic bag.

So who actually asked for such a change? I don’t recall the old way of wrapping bread being a particular problem, and I certainly can’t remember the consumer demanding his apples be packed in plastic trays. So how did we get to the place where we find ourselves now?

Like so much in modern life, to find the answer we must follow the money and the power to the point where somebody’s holding of either increases. It’s a fundamental truth that businesses must either cut costs or grow revenue to increase profits, and in the food sector that means processing. The more any given food is processed, the greater value is added to it, and that fundamental economic and marketing truth goes a long way to explaining our apocryphal apples wrapped in plastic. What else can you do with an apple and still preserve it as recognisable piece of fruit?

It’s only now, after decades of profligate plastic usage that we’re starting to understand just how big a problem we’ve created for ourselves. Naturally we’ve started seeking solutions, which ironically involve looking back to an era when paper was king and glass bottles were easily reused or recycled. Taking the longer view, it turns out that maybe we were once wiser than we knew, and many “old fashioned” ideas had a lot more to their credit than the loudest of lobbying voices cared to admit.

Just like our apples wrapped in plastic, the European Union has also quietly grown into an expensive and wasteful hazard, and its baleful influence had to reach choking point before most of us noticed its creeping incursion into all our lives. Outside of a few noisy special interest groups, hardly anyone in Europe ever wanted or asked for the gargantuan behemoth we’re battling now; and just like our irresponsible push to plasticise, we stand aghast at the damage we’ve unwittingly unleashed.

The good news is that just like the packaging industry, the future for nation states can be found in the past. That doesn’t mean slamming on the brakes and trying to throw history into reverse, but instead taking some fundamentally sound ideas from a time before the EU and reimagining them for the century to come. Just as some bright inventor will soon come up with bio-degradable waxed paper 2.0 and make a ton of money, so we’ll develop new ways of working together in an increasingly globalised, interconnected, yet de-centralised world.

Doubtless many aspiring authoritarians will argue that our increased interconnectedness demands an even greater degree of supranational governance and regulation. Well, that all sounds fine in the lobbies at Davos, but history is now revealing the folly of exchanging the reality of national sovereignty for the illusion of increased prosperity and security.

The European Union is the plastic apple tray of the political world. We don’t need it, we never asked for it, and all it does is serve the interests of a small group of men sitting on the top floors of tall buildings.

We’ve allowed one hell of a mess to build up over the years, and it’s going to take a long time and some innovative thinking to repair the damage.

Image courtesy of tinpalace at Freeimages.com

*Some commentators maintain that wrapping food like fruit prolongs shelf life and decreases food wastage, and thus the environmental impact is more nuanced.

Does the EU Really Want a Trade Deal?

The evidence suggests it doesn’t.

It feels like forever since Britain voted to leave the EU in June 2016. Following that momentous day, the long-suffering British public have been buried by a blizzard of headlines, briefings, position papers and statements of principle. Everything from security, to the Irish border, through citizens’ rights, the “divorce bill” and back to the Irish border has been subjected to the most intense scrutiny and debate. Offers, rejections, accusations and counter-offers have become the new normal for Anglo-Brussels relations.

The only subject consistently absent from this flurry of proposals and propaganda is trade.

Funny that.

It’s become increasingly clear that the EU is desperate to talk about everything except trade. It’s surely no accident that the first phase of the exit negotiations makes no mention of any future trading relationship between us, and now that phase is concluded, the thorny issue of the Irish border has popped up once again, seemingly from nowhere.

The EU knows perfectly well that its so-called “backstop” position on the Ireland issue is completely unacceptable to the UK. So why go to the trouble of including it in the draft Brexit treaty?

The outrageous “divorce bill,” demands for ECJ supremacy and now the de-facto annexation of Northern Ireland are all part of a pattern of behaviour that’s starting to resemble a disgruntled employee who’s trying his hardest to get himself fired.

Why?

To put it simply, the European Union has no political interest in being a good neighbour and dependable partner to the United Kingdom, and is therefore trying to force Britain to abandon the talks. The uncomfortable truth is that while a far-reaching and ambitious treaty will help both the people and businesses of Europe, it will not help the European Union.

And that’s what really matters.

In practical terms it should be a cinch. We’re already so closely aligned that maintaining standards for EU markets while diverging in other areas should be the easiest thing in the world, so why is the EU making it so difficult?

Because Brussels knows full well that if the UK can exit the European Union and continue with (relatively) frictionless trade, other nations will soon stampede for the door. After all, what country would not wish to strengthen its domestic legislature while paying a manageable price in terms of trade? If Britain can strike a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, then the EU is finished as a global political force, and it knows this. The once omnipotent European Union would be politically neutered and gradually reduced to the status of an international trade body if Britain gets a good deal. Ironically enough, this would transform the EU into the kind of continental trading bloc we first joined back in 1973, and that’s something most Europeans and Brits would be quite happy with. However, such a dramatic loss of political power is something that the European Union will never accept. Make no mistake, Brussels is willing to pay any price in European misery to preserve its own supremacy.

If Brexit has served no other purpose, it’s proved beyond doubt that what’s good for Europe is bad for the EU, and all Europeans would do well to think long and hard about how we got ourselves into this position.

Images courtesy of Arztsamui & franky242 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Nothing will satisfy the Eurocrats now

With Theresa May’s heavily trailed Europe speech rapidly approaching, the commentariat have gone into a kind of speculative overdrive as they feverishly try to second guess the shape and form of any revised Brexit offer the Prime Minister might make. Tales of a two year transition period and a £35 billion Brexit bill have been bandied about for the last week, and will no doubt become even more speculative as the big day draws closer.

People shouldn’t get their hopes up. As I explained in my earlier article, it seems unlikely that any deal offered by Britain will be sufficient to satisfy the EU negotiators, regardless of what each member state might privately think.

If, and it’s a big if, the figure of £35 billion is even reasonably accurate, it cannot simply be forked over without expecting something in return. Such an offer will surely be conditional on the UK exiting both the Single Market and the Customs Union in March 2019. This would allow the UK to negotiate trade on its own while retaining tariff free access to the Single Market for a short period. It will also deliver on Britain’s commitment to the current EU budget period which ends in 2020. This all seems quite reasonable, generous even, but Michel Barnier et al have thus far proved completely unwilling to accept any offer which is not an exact continuation of the current status quo.

Britain is often accused of wanting to have its Brexit cake and eat it, yet it’s the European Union which has steadfastly sought to retain every advantage it currently enjoys and give nothing in return.

For reasons that have never been fully explained, the EU seems to believe it can easily extract tens of billions of pounds from a leaving member state in return for a vague promise of future trade talks, with no certain outcome. Nobody in their right mind would accept that kind of dodgy get rich scheme pitch, and the Prime Minister must know the political and financial folly of such a lopsided arrangement.

Instead of engaging in constructive discussions, Brussels has embarked on a counterproductive campaign of deliberate discourtesy every time the UK has offered a solution to any Brexit problem. This cannot be an accident, just look at their responses so far…

Theresa May is “living in another galaxy” when it comes to the colossal, nebulous and ever-changing “divorce bill.”

Proposed customs and border arrangements are “a fantasy.”

An offer regarding citizens’ rights is a “damp squib.”

The Irish border proposals are “magical thinking.”

Conclusion: the EU has no interest in reaching any kind of pragmatic, mutually beneficial accommodation with the first nation ever to cut ties with this increasingly authoritarian bloc. They can’t risk setting a dangerous political precedent as they know for sure that other nations will follow. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the no-deal Brexit scenario was probably decided within hours of the referendum result.

This will be the background behind the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday. She may be gracious and accommodating, or combative and confrontational. In fact it doesn’t really matter which approach she adopts because the response has already been decided. It’ll probably take under an hour for the inevitable hoots of laughter and derision to pour forth from the Brussels bureaucrats and their metropolitan media enablers.

We’re wasting our time.

Image courtesy of Michal Zacharzewski at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Labour’s Back to the Future Brexit

Roll up, roll up! Get your new and improved Labour Brexit right here! Much softer than brand Tory and guaranteed to preserve the status quo by remaining inside the customs union and the single market. It’s kinder and more moral too, with extra freedom of movement and ECJ oversight baked in for another two years…or maybe that’s four, or maybe, perhaps, possibly even longer than that. But don’t you worry, Britain absolutely will be leaving the European Union in 2019. Oh sure, there are some details to sort out, but apart from the continued jurisdiction of the ECJ, freedom of movement, membership fees and EU trade supremacy, Britain will be completely independent. We are absolutely committed to delivering Brexit.

Seriously, is anyone still buying this snake oil b******t? If they are, then I have a very nice bridge…

If Sir Keir Starmer’s new Brexit formula feels oddly familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before, several times. The Labour Party is taking a well-trodden path to a certain dead end, and it clearly believes its voter base is either too dim or too blindly tribal to notice or care. Labour’s newly unveiled Brexit policy is exactly the kind of cherry picking fantasy the EU has firmly rejected from day one, and with good cause. If the whole Brexit process has proven one indisputable fact, it’s that you’re either in the EU or you’re not. There are no half measures, yet the Labour Party seems to think it can somehow leave and remain at the same time. Good luck with that.

Why should the EU even consider the concept of such an unprecedented and awkward arrangement, especially for a member state that’s going to be leaving anyway? Unless it’s a ruse to keep Britain shackled to Brussels indefinitely, they have no incentive to even discuss such a ridiculous idea.

Back in June, millions of Labour Leave voters cast their ballots in good faith, safe in the knowledge that the party they backed were not attempting to remain in the EU via the back door, just as their arch enemy Theresa May had previously warned. Then…abracadabra…poof! Overnight the Labour Party has press-ganged their votes into serving a mendacious attempt to remain in the EU in all but name. At least Tory and Lib Dem backers knew what they were signing up for.

I guess a lot of younger Labour voters are now starting to understand why their elders voted Leave in such huge numbers. They’ve now had a direct taste of the utter contempt in which the party the many holds both them and their views.

Feeling angry and duped? You bloody well should be!

Image courtesy of artur84 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

True Colours

Unless things change dramatically, it’s looking increasingly like Britain will leave the European Union without any kind of meaningful trade deal or reciprocal arrangements on citizens’ rights.

This will be a great disappointment to the vast majority of both leave and remain voters, but the latest round of talks in Brussels has demonstrated that both sides are approaching the negotiations from fundamentally different perspectives. Interestingly, these two divergent viewpoints neatly serve to illustrate the fundamental reason behind Britain’s restive relationship with the European Union, and its true motivation for walking away.

Whilst frustrating and very concerning for everyone involved, the increasingly fraught Brexit process has finally killed any pretence that the European Project is about anything other than ever increasing political power. Don’t take my word for it, but look instead at the primary motivations of the opposing parties.

While the British approach is essentially pragmatic, focusing on trade, cooperation and partnership, the EU is concerned primarily with maximising political influence over the UK after March 2019. This is why the talks will most likely fail as neither side is capable of relinquishing what it sees as its own inalienable rights. The idea of EU institutions continuing to control UK law is anathema to the British, while the EU simply cannot imagine any kind of relationship with the UK which doesn’t involve direct political influence. Oddly enough, they’re easily able to imagine such a relationship with Canada and Japan, but the UK will be treated very differently. The reason for this glaring double standard is because the UK is now a clear and present threat to the European Project.

The increasingly acrimonious wrangling over EU citizens is an excellent example of these two incompatible viewpoints. Leaving aside any quibble over details, the UK has made a meaningful and substantive opening offer on citizens’ rights. Tentative discussion of a possible transition period for EU citizens living in or moving to the UK shows some level of flexibility, and a willingness to compromise on important issues.

In stark contrast, the EU has been exposed as utterly unwilling to accept the reality that it will no longer wield direct legal influence over UK affairs once Britain has withdrawn from the bloc. This is why their negotiators continue to indulge the fantasy of the European Court of Justice continuing its jurisdiction over EU citizens residing in the UK after March 2019.

One does not need a Master’s degree in treaty law to realise that such an idea is patently absurd and completely unworkable. An old friend of mine is married to a lady from East Germany (and an hour spent talking with someone who grew up behind the Iron Curtain is an education in itself). Is the EU seriously suggesting that my friend would have to appeal to one Supreme Court for his justice, while his wife would have to appeal to a different one for hers? What about their young child, where would he have to go when he grows up? Could he choose whichever he fancies? What happens if one Supreme Court rules against him, can he just run to the other like a child playing his parents?

No sovereign nation, of any stripe, can be expected to allow a foreign court to rule on issues of law within its own borders. The fact that drinking alcohol is legal in the UK does not save British citizens from arrest in Saudi Arabia. How could it?

The EU negotiators must know this because they are extensively educated, yet still they persist, in the full knowledge that such intransigence will probably scupper the whole negotiation process.

With each round of talks, my suspicion grows that the no-deal scenario has already been decided by Brussels. The EU knows the UK is leaving and there’s nothing it can do to stop that from happening. The only course of action left is to catch Britain’s fingers in the door as it walks out in a last ditch effort to discourage others from following.

It gives me no pleasure to say it, but there will probably be no meaningful Brexit deal. It’s going to get a lot nastier from here on in, and we can expect undisguised EU hostility to continue for many years after we’ve gone. We’d best get used to it now and adjust accordingly.

Ballooning Bill

It’s taken a while, but finally the truth is out there. After all the false pretence, official leaks and political theatre, we now know exactly what the European Union’s priorities are as far as any Brexit negotiation is concerned.

It’s all about the money…it’s always been about the money.

It has to be about the money, because the truth that dare not speak its name in polite politics is that the European Union is in fact one colossal wealth redistribution engine. Not so much a welfare state as welfare for states, and Brexit represents a de facto tax strike.

It’s still not clear exactly how much of the average UK worker’s wage packet Brussels believes it’s entitled to, but we know it’ll more than enough to keep Juncker and the rest of his unelected inner circle in comfort and cognac for the rest of their days. The fact that the EU has been obsessing about the Brexit bill being settled in advance of any trade negotiations shows just how vital the UK’s contributions are in propping up the increasingly rickety superstructure of this increasingly embattled superstate.

Only this morning the press is reporting that Poland and France have weighed in with an extra demand for still greater contributions to support the hated Common Agricultural Policy. Quelle surprise!

At first glance it would appear that the European Union is single minded in its ambition to shaft us one last time before we finally slam the door on this unhappy marriage, but that unity is just a little too polished a little too well rehearsed to be entirely authentic. Since when did all the member states agree anything in 4 months, let alone 4 minutes?

The truth is that the Brussels bureaucrats are facing an existential crisis, and they know it. One member state has already decided to quit the bloc, and the remaining twenty-seven will inevitably turn on each other and Brussels as recipients become contributors and the age of acquiescence bought with confiscated cash finally comes to an abrupt and painful end.

George Osborne was right during the referendum campaign when he said that Brexit would cause a profound economic shock…but it won’t just be for us.

This looming and inescapable crisis explains why Brussels is so insistent on treating the UK as a supplicant state rather than the union’s second largest economy.

We should get used to this kind of abuse and grandstanding, because it’ll drone on for years before we go and long after we’ve left. Once the European Union collapses under the weight of its own hubris, naturally it’s the Brexiting British who will be blamed. The next Greek debt crisis, blame Brexit. The rise of nationalism, Brexit. Conflict on the Korean peninsula, Brussels will doubtless find a way to blame Brexit for that too. Just look across the ocean to where an increasingly unhinged Hillary Clinton has blamed everything from misogyny to voter stupidity, and even some Machiavellian Russian plot to disguise her own colossal, epoch defining ineptitude and corruption. So will it be with Brexit.

The European Union may appear to be an immovable object, but the nations upon which it has imposed itself are far less interested in penalising one reluctant member state than they are with providing jobs, trade and prosperity for their own voting and taxpaying citizenry. Sooner or later, they will find themselves in direct conflict with Brussels as economic pragmatism collides with the inflexible zeal of the EU’s ideologues.

There is much talk among the pundit classes of a possible future breakup of the EU, but I would say that Brussels’ growing obsession with scoring one last shot of UK cash suggests that process is already underway. Last orders have been called and the tab’s being tallied.

The party’s over.

The Soft 48

So the unofficial Brexit election is officially on, and already there’s talk in the mainstream press about a possible Lib-Dem resurgence. Given that they’re currently languishing at about 11% in the polls along with UKIP and others, that seems like wishful thinking.

There can be little doubt that the newly crowned party of the diehard Remainer will wrestle a few trendy metropolitan seats from the Conservatives. The kind of constituencies that boast expensive coffee served up by migrants who sleep four to a room. However, the Remainers’ resurgence will be much smaller than Mr Farron might hope, and his dream of a sizeable Parliamentary presence is nothing more than a pleasant fantasy. Wishing doesn’t make it so, and the 48% is much softer and more diverse than the hardcore Remainers have talked themselves into believing.

Throughout the ensuing blizzard of post-referendum dialogue in the mainstream press and on the internet, the single biggest complaint among Brexiteers seems to be the fact that their opponents continually characterise them as poorly educated, bigoted and probably racist little Englanders.

Unfortunately for the committed Remain camp, just a few seconds of sustained rational thought will reveal the ridiculous implausibility of 17.4 million people voting to leave the European Union through an irrational xenophobic hatred of those people in this world who are most like themselves. With that especially spiteful and deluded label rightly consigned to the dustbin of discourse, it’s equally important not to blithely write off the 16.1 million who voted to remain as soulless, humourless, identikit authoritarians, hell bent on stealing political power from a European demographic they despise as an intransigent blot on their blueprint for a supreme European superstate.

Such a mischaracterisation of remain voters is insulting to their intelligence, motives and aspirations for the UK, and within that easy demolition of such a crude caricature lies the truth that will soon expose the shallowness of Remain’s support pool.

The one thing that has not yet been spoken about through all of the pre-and post-referendum autopsy are the forces that really drove intelligent, articulate individual voters to align themselves with the increasingly authoritarian, remote and unpopular bureaucratic class embodied by the EU. It’s highly unlikely that the vast majority of those 16.1 million citizens were guided by snobbery or elitism, and it’s much more likely that Project Fear had persuaded them to rationally cast their votes in favour of the lesser evil. After all, why take the risk?

Ten months on from that momentous day, we are a good deal further down the road and we all have a little more perspective on the landscape through which we travel. Many Remain leaning publications are still shivering on their widow’s walks, fervently scanning a distant horizon for even the slightest signs of Bregret, from anyone, anywhere. This has led them into the unfortunate habit of making themselves look foolish when they smugly declare that the malaise has taken hold among the leave supporting troglodyte class. When it clearly hasn’t.

Whilst they are busily searching for signs of weakness in their enemy’s defences, they’ve remained blissfully unaware of the mutinous mutterings much closer to home.

If anyone cares to stop shouting and listen carefully, they may hear the distant approach of a growing insurgent army of Remain deserters who feel they’ve been thoroughly hoodwinked by a dishonest establishment. An increasing number of these reluctant Remainers are actually glad that Britain is leaving an EU that they never really loved, now that the Project Fear hoax has been exposed as a cynical campaign of coercion and misinformation.

Some commentators are already touting Theresa May’s snap election as Brexit referendum 2.0 and are dutifully preparing to reboot Project Fear as the spectre of a “disastrous hard Brexit” is predictably conjured up. They seem to be wilfully ignorant of the unknown but growing number of recanting Remainers who are just waiting to throw their weight behind our now certain exit from the EU. The scales have fallen from their eyes and they now see that the emperor wears no clothes.

They won’t get fooled again, and come June 8th, they will have their revenge.