The way and manner in which everyone is lording this common duty on Theresa May as if it is her private duty goes beyond all reasonable fairness and justice which the British hold dear. Most worrying is that those jabbing about Brexit have no great insight of what is involved and treating it as an academic exercise is most disturbing. That we voted in 2016 on an issue we did not understand fully shows how trickery its trending has become. Brexit was not a child of necessity but of untamed pressure. When a people go seeking for solution, they must follow a systematic approach to identify the problem properly and then, the best solution for it. That the then Prime Minister D Cameron, threw in Referendum in his campaign (2014) for then, the forthcoming General Election (2015) did not make referendum a solution to the identified fast-disappearing British values [territorial capacity, political democracy, rule of law; moral prudence, civil liberty, inter-dependence of the population (toleration and respect); safety & security and productivity supported economy]. Cameron’s referendum was to placate a few Eurosceptics in his party who were always nagging about new rules and regulations coming from Brussels. He was very much of the opinion that he will win it with ease. We all hope the scars left by the respective parties of ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ do not put a damp on the national interest and invariably a dislocation amongst Brits.
When did the British values start to diminish and why? What made the referendum to become Hercules? What amount of talks, nagging, critics and worries shall resolve the ado? To understand and appreciate all of the above, one need to pinpoint their seeds of origin. Historically, British wisdom cannot be assessed in isolation of other developments. Soon after the slave trade in 1901, Britain saw itself at the helm of shaping the world order. It did so from 1914 (reaction to German invasion of Belgium) and 1939 (reaction to German invasion of Poland) and moreover, played high diplomacy to win in all fronts (political, linguistic & technological assimilations). However, no condition is permanent.
The on-going challenges from the subsequent world-wide developments began in 1989; namely, the re-unification of East and West Germans with no bombs and missiles but love of German-Unity, which men tried since 1961 to put asunder. The disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1990 did not surprise a little as the unplanned economic consequences of unmanageable structures. We do not the dicing in the celestial realm but soon in 1992, the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher closed the six British Industrial Zones, which no subsequent PMs reopened. Once surprise, there will always be surprise. Towards the end of that year, her successor, John Major (PM) refused Single Currency (Maastricht Treaty 1992), after there was a run on the pound which made a certain liberal left-wing currency speculator George Soros a billionaire – who now thinks the EU is the best thing since slice bread to the extent that, he now pours his personal wealth into groups that are calling for a second referandum. Money earned in ruining the British economy now use to support the liberal elite campaign to overturn a democratic vote. The doors of EC opened wider to engross other developments, e.g., the Channel Tunnel (1994); then, Tony Blair’s acceptance of Single Europe (Amsterdam Treaty 1997) was dissimilative of the Maastricht Treaty. Parliament does not determine Parliament but consistency guides the wheel of parliamentary evolution. A book I published entitled "The Future of Britain: A Policy Perspective (2002)" looked at how Britain can cope with its past, present and future and recommended recipes of internal transformation (Human, Policy & Moralities) that centres on British nationalism in embracing new challenges. The latter tasks Britain to focus centrally on its population. It is a size-down to determine national capacity. Young men to be assessed and pushed to training into national requirements and be looked after well. Old people assessed on what good purposes they can serve to the nation. The book can be purchased from this site - check books category. A vibrant nation leaves no one idle. This is our minimum stance to assess our globalisation. It needs not be Communist but a system that absorbs all and left none to rout. Is it best to relegate national unemployed youths needing training even in Football to recruiting other nationals? The age of handouts has gone with the necessitous days of war. Into peace era, a grandeur plan seeks to need reduce costs by maximizing utility of national resources. This again conflicts with Thatcher’s decision, when Britain needed to maintain its dominance in the Post-Cold-War Era.
How did East and West Germany revamp without going for external assistance? Internal solidarity and efficient conversion of idle time to productivity yield. The rise of British population from 59m in 1997 to 65m in 2014posed not welfare but economic challenge on hub of evolution. Between EC and its Member States, they ratified Amsterdam Treaty to become European Union (EU) in 2004. Evidence arising from this showed the difference between EC and EU. The latter was not recommended in 2002 but the former was seen as a way of developing every part of Europe to make it homely for its citizens everywhere to lead to a true Union in a long-term future paid for by net contributors to develop poorer countries who could not develop themselves since the WW11.
How did we manage the Post-Cold War to crash out in 2014 of British Values fast-disappearing? With the closure of the six Industrial zone, Britain became less productive, competitive; else, if someone likes or wants to live with you, find him something to do but not hope on the welfare system of past generations’ contributions. The task of trading national values with aggressive globalisation is hard. When the then Prime Minister elected in 2014: where are the British values? He was pointed to the growth strategy of reopening the Industrial Zones. His opting for Referendum to determine the future of Britain in Europe, which was not originally focused but what Britain needed to be well. Britain can severe relationship with the world and live alone; it can revisit its Treaties to ascertain which ones are not working for her; e.g., EC to EU, Commonwealth, NATO… Fortunately, we have Prime Ministers, Ministers and MPs that negotiate issues. To throw the Referendum on the people pointing to Europe was amateurish style of play. If it was a Treaty, we revisit the particular Treaty to seek solution.
Hard or Soft-Brexit is a necessitous option after the referendum. A declaration of intention in 2016 may take five years or more, to determine ancillary relieves. Where ‘Leave’ is leave is where there are no chains. The UK is not unconnected to Europe. No hard Brexit will do for now. Thus, Soft Brexit seems most applicable. We cannot talk louder than the assignment. Thus, given a fresh task to do, the leader looked comprehensively and acted to avoid Britain crashing out lauder. Indeed, taking Britain’s stand in Europe from 1914 to-date, Hard-Brexit would not apply. There is no need for a Second Referendum; it is most doubtful of its cost and outcome. The UK needs not pay £39m but simply allow itself as a guinea pig. It has not happened before in Europe; thus, a Soft-Brexit is most applicable to be tried for five years. At the end of the trial period, the UK might weigh with informed knowledge revoke Brexit and return to Europe.
We elected leaders to devote to our issues. As can been seen from above, it is not as easy a personal wish rejecting or accepting what Theresa May achieved. A door opened on 13/12/2018, the EU said that they are prepared to reconsider any clarifications. What does this mean? It means clarify and seek further. I am rather dismayed that neither ruling Conservative MPs nor Oppositions’ MPs saw our plight as a national issue. They forsook and lord it on Theresa May as her problem. In 1940, at the heat of the WW11 both Economists (JM Keynes) and RAF (Air Chief Marshal Dowding) supported PM Churchill to forge ahead but now in a very rare situation, our MPS deserted us and our Prime Minister. If you know what to do to save us, why not save us first and later put your criticism as lesson for future. Brexit Referendum was like an invitation to treat; if the actual doing posed challenge, we shall all rally round for solution and not stand on the hedge to criticise. What will any of our MPs do if s/he became Prime Minister in the stead of Theresa May? At this moment none of them passed the test of fitness for purpose by what they do. A winning ‘Vote of Confidence’ shattered their doubts. Even the Oppositions offered no better propositions to save us. For this and other salient issues, the solution is national; not personal or Party.
General Election will permeate our nerves with tension and mistakes. Second Referendum will be doubted as the First and protract our nervous tension. Thus, let us rally round our Prime Minister; give her our best support and suggestions to improve clarifications and solutions. We can move the goal post of Art.50 and use the interim time to assess and treat our home-worthiness. I mean, Soft-Brexit for five years will assess our capacity bearing. It is not easy but challenging and it is a test for all of us. We have passed ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ by the verdict of the 2016 Referendum. Leave is where we are and must seek the best of it. It is a mistake for the former ‘Remainers’ to put studs to crumble down a national verdict; or, for the Strict ‘Leavers’ to Sherlock about it. Please save us, our MPs.
I could not agree more . These salient features you have raised are absolutely fundamental