The following is a comment on Chris Grey's partly excellent denunciation of Theresa May's (and the British government's) approach to Brexit. Unfortunately Chris does not permit comments. I recommend reading his work here.*
I agree with most of this* (as a Brexit supporter). Where I disagree is with blaming the
Brexiters. May and most of her supporter are remainers. It's May who
is trying to subvert the options by pretending there is a half in,
half out panacea which the EU is just somehow in denial about. I
agree it makes her and the UK look foolish, but you have to keep in
mind that May thinks she is offering the EU essentially a betrayal of
Brexit by sticking to EU rules while claiming independence. She
thinks that's a 'good deal' for them and cannot understand why she is
rejected. She fails to understand what a project the EU is. The EU is
already looking to the East (Bulgaria, Ukraine spring to mind) for
ways to extend its power. The idea of losing a few fellow travellers
along the way was already priced in. The EU's thinking may
(reluctantly) be compared with Hitler's in 1939- Britain can keep her
world trading network malarkey if the Germany gets mainland Europe
and its satellites. May's willingness to parley Britain's military
strength in return for Chequers is a sign that she's not completely
ignorant of this, but at least publicly she is bereft of this
awareness, claiming that the EU must compromise.
The central accusation
against Brexiters is unfair though: the idea that 'access' is a
weasel word (implying that we will somehow keep Single Market conditions) must be set against the false expression 'frozen out' (widely used by remainers),
which suggests that the EU has no interest in its own trade surplus
with the UK, or any regard for WTO rules. In the referendum these
poles were logically the parameters of discussion and rhetoric-
neither is per se dishonest. As regards elision of the options
post-Brexit, the exact form of a trade agreement would always be moot
until formulated in black and white- which is a chief culpability of
May and her remain instincts leading to hope of a false 'leave', a
kind of cosmetic agreement with plenty of sweeteners, underlining
British exceptionalism within the EU (which seems to me entirely
unjust, unmerited and dangerous- as perhaps Barnier agrees).
As a supporter of leave,
motivated by the democratic deficit in the EU, economic protectionism
and inequalities promoted by the EU, the sluggish reaction to
crises,the bully-boy tactics, the bureaucracy and high-handedness I
have first-hand witnessed, and the sheer banality of revisiting
Europe's idees fixees for the satisfaction of boomer Germans and
Frenchmen- plus enthusiasm for the world at large- I know as most of
my fellow leavers know, and most leavers clearly want, that you
leave, and then mitigate. You come to the EU as a supplicant (which
attitude they desire) and behind your back you have several big
sticks to chase the dissolute high priest (trade, finance, and
military cooperation). Don't accuse leavers of the muddled thinking
that May embraces as a way of tricking 'the nasty party' as she sees
them. That would be to slander them twice over.
