https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-eus-written-a-bloc-buster-but-will-boris-rip-it-up/
________________________________________
The Political Declaration contains divorce terms so amicable that the opposing parties ought to get a room. Yet if the General Election forecasts are correct, the next Conservative government should have a majority that will let Boris Johnson radically revise the WA/PD or scrap them altogether. Will he do it?
Should he
do it?
The
hubristic European Union is already gloating that
May’s Withdrawal Agreement hasn’t been modified, merely clarified. I haven’t yet studied the documentation, so I can’t say – but then, how many
MPs and spads have done so? How many, rather, are like Douglas Hurd at
Maastricht, who jested (and was it a jest?) ‘Now we’ve signed it – we had
better read it’? Still, they’ve had two years to go through what was 599 pages and is now only 541 – not much longer than an airport bonkbuster; and it’s their job, after all.
The Political Declaration, on the
other hand, is merely 26 pages in both the original and revised versions; the length of a short story. Even the layman can read that, and what
a story it is!
This sketch of the future
relationship between the divorcees is half lawyer and half lover. In the first
version the word ‘ambitious’ appears seven times, ‘close’ sixteen, ‘to the
extent possible’ (and similar phrases) thirteen, and ‘align/ment’ four. One feels
the bonds being tied already. So masterful… and so yielding!
And the atmospherics are not much
changed in the revision. Yes, the Irish backstop has been taken out – including
the twice-used commanding phrase ‘on a permanent footing’ (how did that get
past May’s negotiators?), but disputes are still to go to the EU’s Court of
Justice for a ‘binding ruling’ (tighter, please!)
Here’s
an odd detail: the original spoke of ‘administrative cooperation in customs’
but left out VAT. Not insignificant: we sent £3.1 billion (pre-rebate) to theEU last year, which is like winning the 10
biggest-ever jackpots on the Euromillions, twice over, annually. Oops, or not?
As for the UK-fisheries-strangling
‘level playing field’, here’s the new (longer) paragraph – even if, like me,
you’re not legally trained, how many carefully ambiguous – and entangling -
phrases can you find in it?
‘Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic
proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure
open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level
playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with
the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness
of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and
unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common
high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the
transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment
standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties
should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for
competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and
competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of
taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain
environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels
provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on
appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include
appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically,
enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote
adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed
principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement.’
Back to
Johnson’s revise/scrap option. Can he do it?
Fair
stands the wind for Boris: Corbyn's Labour Party has culled smoothie
crypto-Marxist Blairites - who unlike him have actually held power and foisted
real constitutional damage on us - but also repelled Old Labour by openly
espousing a Marxism that would have Cassandra crying in the streets.
Accordingly, Electoral Calculus predicts (as at 9 November) a 96-seat Conservative
majority. This is not counting the pact offered by The Brexit Party (and
favoured by TCW readers) that could split the working-class Labour vote in many
key seats.
So far,
Johnson rejects Farage's offer, but the risk he is taking is that enough
traditional Conservative voters will understand and reject the
hurriedly-made-over May deal to split their vote, too. Should they be convinced
that Corbyn has no chance whatever, then anything could happen in the polling
booths.
If
Johnson wants a 1997-scale landslide, then like Blair he should shun
presumption and over-engineer his campaign. There is still time: unless I'm
mistaken, a new Parliament might pass a fresh Meaningful Vote in favour of an
ironclad real deal on the slipway, instead of launching a paper boat into a
stormy sea with BJ's huff-and-puff in its sails.
In short,
the choice on 12 December is not between Citizen Smith and the Blond Bombshell;
it's between Bullish Boris and Blowhard Boris. If he doesn't deliver Brexit, it
won't be because he didn't have the chance. And then we shall know him.
No comments:
Post a Comment