Liberalism’s Endgame…


December 18th201

What destiny liberalsim

The British entanglement with themselves over whether or not they should leave the European Union with a seriously bad arrangement or with no post-membership arrangement at all, is proving close to intractable currently.

The present furor seems odd; certainly to the rest of us who don’t live there.  They apparently had an issue that most of us don’t understand, with being members of the world’s most exclusive Trillion-dollar club… one to which many would like to belong, including me.

Admittedly the majority who voted to leave was a fairly slender one… but nonetheless it was a majority: and those rules imposed on the world by the advances of Liberalism over the past cluster of centuries since the beginning of the modern era, say that you have to live with it.  

The losers, i.e. the Remainers want a rerun. The Leavers see the whole idea of a re run as a scandalous violation of democratic freedom. Freedom is the world of Adult decisions and Ultimately, People were free to choose and the lies that politicians use to achieve their, whatever, ends: are as old as the whole idea of politics itself:  to confuse. If you voted for the lies then live with it… or should we

Basically: If there are leavers who were too disinterested to find out what they were voting for, well tough; that’s their problem. Live with it… that is the Liberalist vision.

In his 1985 publication: “How Wars End”, the British Historian, A.J.P. Taylor makes a cruelly fascinating point referring to a decision by the British government in 1822 that finally killed off the Congress of Vienna attempts to build a mediating process to end wars. He says. “Not for the first time the British government took the line that if there was a liberal government out of hand somewhere it should be allowed to lead its country to destruction.”

So let it be two centuries later as Britain slides almost inexorably towards a suicide cliff suggesting that National suicide is an option to protect the liberal vision.

So. Regarding BREXIT and Liberalism: Does Theresa May represent the endgame of the liberal ethic turned strictly Ideological Determinism with suicide an option? 



Having lived cheek by jowl with ideologically determined crazies my whole life I don’t really see Mrs. May as such a person. I see her as a person who wanted, and voted, to Remain in the Union and in the interests of full disclosure; were I a voter there, I too would have voted to remain in that wonderfully comfortable snug Trillion dollar club, where all I had to do was count my chickens, and think  GREEN.

I have a ghastly vision of the residents of a luxurious, if not the Best comfort care home in town waking up after 40 years of almost smothering care, to the horror of being tossed out onto the Common: and having to rush off in their respective dotages, to sing for their supper… I.o.w. I see it as ‘national suicide’…  

In fact if it were anything but, then the obstreperous loud-mouthed BREXITEERS who supported and promoted the whole idea would not have rushed post-haste to resign their roles within hours of the shock decision being made. They couldn’t move fast enough to duck the blame that is now being leveled at the “nice” lady: who was the only person with the balls to take on the desperately unwanted job.  Even the leader of the main Opposition Party has carefully avoided accidentally being elected, so he could avoid being blamed for the pending catastrophe.

None had  any idea of how to turn the place into a thriving, freely operating union, outside the European one… And two years later have still failed to present any plan other than the famed “muddling through” axiom in defense of what currently promises to be an apocalyptic event.

So the task of negotiating an exit fell on the most unlikely person; and the core implicit element that appears to be missing is trust… And given how little trust is apparent  with the back-stop open-ended condition, with which a desperate Mrs. May played cat and mouse [badly]…  the country is placed in an invidious position.

It is caught between the reluctance of the EU leaders to see the country leave their warm embrace and the actual divorce. And as most people know afterwards, Divorce is rarely anything less than messy and loaded with recrimination. And Mrs. May has not helped matters with her fudging efforts to appear reasonable and willing.

There is also something about the back-stop arrangement she is attempting to sell that seems unsavoury to this observer.

The key argument in favour of leaving according to the deeply elusive BREXITEERS is the issue of Sovereignty. If Britain wanted to leave NATO, for instance, or even the United Nations, then she could just resign and leave; That would be an expression of Sovereignty

However the backstop has a provision apparently that excludes any unilateral behaviour by Britain to escape from their proposed retention inside a customs union to protect Northern Ireland [a part of the United Kingdom] from fractious dealings with their neighbour, the Irish Republic.  So as I wrote before, the country is preparing to be neither in, nor out, of the EU.

In fact should Britain decide a few years down the line that they will exit the Custom arrangement and become properly free this can only be done by mutual agreement.

This has resulted in irate rumblings from the BREXITEERS who mumble on about ‘Vassalage’: a valid point given that remaining in the Customs Union would dramatically, apparently, restrict The UK’s ability to deal with the rest of the planet unilaterally, while still having to pay dues and having zero voting rights… a distinctly dodgy deal.

Something that seems, however, to have been missed in the argument over the Back-Stop arrangement’s focus on Ireland is the understanding of the word MUTUAL in the phrase ‘agreement to leave’. One almost suspects careful misdirection is in order.

Certainly the focus is so intensely on Ireland by British commentators that no English media seem to have noted that mutual refers to a potentially destructive game that can emerge between 27 remaining members of the Union and the Leaver [UK]. The EU has 28 members remember. Mutual, in the agreement, surely means that 27 members must unanimously agree that the 28th can go. What if some don’t? Certainly I have heard no comment by the English on this.

For instance a cynic like myself could argue that Gibraltar emerges from that package called “THE DEAL”, as a prime “Queen’s pawn to a checkmate”: suggested by [again, for instance] a reasonably obdurate Spain; still rankling at being forced under duress to cede the place away under the Treaty of Utrecht, more than three hundred years ago…

Utrecht was a treaty from which Britain benefitted more than any ally or other contestant. Spain is in fact still negotiating with the descendants of the Jewish community expelled from the country in 1492… Such matters continue to press on after the mob has forgotten their rage. One hardly imagines they [the Spanish] would forget being forced to give up Gibraltar.

It is difficult for this observer to decide which message Mrs. May has chosen, to matter most in her frantic determination to serve the nation with her unwanted task. There was “Strong and stable” then “Global Britain” …  Or the latest tell: that what she does is “In the national Interest.” 

Perhaps Gibraltar is not in the National interest. 

So since that interesting arrangement sees Gibraltar as the potential sacrificial pawn in the game; She could be bartering away her country’s access to the Mediterranean at exactly the moment she was frantically dancing around with children in my country claiming to become “Global Britain”. Presumably the Falklands could be next…  And then what about those delicious tax haven islands. Plenty to barter away: to achieve the mandate of the people.

So as I said at the start; their position has become intractable and my own view would be, that since the actual ‘run for the hills’ barking dog Brexiteers have made a minimal to zero contribution to the reality that Mrs. May faces: the most sensible thing the Parliament can do is to dump the Deal and call for a re- vote based on a more realistic evaluation of the reasoning for the furore.

If a second vote says leave then no one can claim ignorance of reality.

I wish you all a glorious festive day or twelve

Loves ya all


signing off.

One thought on “Liberalism’s Endgame…

  1. The magnitude of some upgrades to the editing function left me [hopefuly temporarily] flummuxed, and without a technical leg to stand on. So i left it as it reads and apologise for the appalling layout. The audio rekording that i was going to test out with it, is also bunkered for the moment for a coding error that must be established and remedied… and i’m no longer sure of what that means: albeit only slightly less confused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *