You probably weren't watching on Saturday night. After all, I wouldn't expect many in the UK to. I am, of course, referring to the popular Swedish television program Melodifestivalen, which, to all intents and purposes, is the selection program Sweden use to pick their Eurovision entry. After changing an explicit lyric to "freaking", Robin Bengtsson emerged as the pride of Sweden that will be representing his country in Kyiv in May.
Speaking of representatives sent to European countries, Theresa May recently returned from the European Council Summit, where a number of rather dull things were discussed; Brexit was not among them. But earlier this week, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was passed through the Houses of Parliament and was given Royal Assent on 16 March 2017. Mrs May has said she will trigger Article 50 within the next two weeks.
Finally.
In the 9 months since the referendum, the political landscape, both at home and abroad, has changed substantially. On the morning after the referendum, Jeremy Corbyn called for the immediate triggering of Article 50, something which many people forget. A couple of hours later, David Cameron announced he would be resigning as Prime Minister. It is, perhaps, a testament to the organisation and the rules of the Conservative Party (which have been around since 2001) that the whole process of finding candidates only took two weeks, and the system, whereupon candidates are nominated by MPs and then the final two are put to the party's membership. That Andrea Leadsom, my pick for leader, had to withdraw was unfortunate, but it has to be said it looked inevitable after she walked into the trap of The Times. The Labour Party also had a leadership election, but the less said about that mess, the better.
Then, we had the intervention of Gina Miller, which, to the surprise of many, the High and then Supreme Courts agreed with, interpreting Article 50 differently to how pretty much everyone else did and stating that in order to enact Article 50, Parliament would have to vote for it based upon the rationale that the royal prerogative cannot be used to remove what was made law by Parliament. The only problem with this, however, is that Article 50 only states that a member state must "provide notification" of intention to withdraw. I have the view that the European Communities Act 1972 and Article 50 are two mutually exclusive events and thus I do not believe the ruling was correct. But now that it has passed, it is somewhat immaterial.
The problem with all of this is that the longer the posturing over this has gone on, the bigger the amount of virtue signalling and generalisation, and that all of this has led people to forget the real reasons that people voted to leave the EU. After all, let us not forget that if anybody was playing on fear in the referendum, it was Remain: our households are meant to lose £4,300 per year, don't forget, as well as World War III, the global Brexit recession, and the slaughtering of the first-born. OK, I lied: they never said the last one, but the tone of "project fear" was such that it would not have been out-of-place.
Cynics say that this is no better than the Leave campaign, talking about immigration and how they're all coming over here, stealing our jobs, and so on. But those who say that are guilty of conflating the official and unofficial Leave campaigns. The official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, did nothing of the sport. Yes, immigration was the trump card of the Leave campaign (because there really was no credible defence Remain could offer), but the argument put forward by the Vote Leave was not one of reducing immigration, but only seeking to end the postcode lottery of free movement of people from within the EU.
In fact, I will take this opportunity to quote this bit of Gisela Stuart's speech in the House of Commons on 31 January, which acts as mythbusting:
All of this posturing, however, including the "missing NHS money" (which, as you will note above, Gisela Stuart has not backed down on), has led to people forgetting the positive vision that was set out as a basis for leaving. I include myself in this. When we look at the "Wirtschaftswunder" between 1945 and 1957, and indeed, the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s, it goes to indicate what can happen when you deregulate your economy. European regulations, not least on a political and economic level, have stifled our economy for decades now. We don't live in an era of regional trading blocs. In the last 30 years, we have seen a breakdown of the USSR and Yugoslavia - both protectionist trading blocs. The EU is such a protectionist trading bloc. We live in a globalised world - as the 6th Doctor (Colin Baker) puts it - "whether you like it or not". For our youth - my generation - the dream is no longer to work for MNCs, but to create new ones. We still have a fantastic entrepreneurial spirit in this country, and it's time that what we do is to deregulate our economy massively. By leaving the EU, we have a fantastic opportunity to do that. The trade deals of the EU are lower than many other nations - even if you include the value of the single market.
Even at a more micro level, when we look at the tariffs that are placed on imports coming into the EU, and the disastrous buffer stock schemes, which combine to push up the prices of agricultural produce somewhere between 10% and 20%, hurt consumers. That is, of course, not even taking into account the fact that the African producers are finding it harder to sell their goods within the EU. We have such a fantastic opportunity, seeing as how an independent nation outside of the EU, as the United Kingdom will become, will be able to do so. Only a government of complete incompetence would slap tariffs on these new produces. This will, of course, drive down inflation - and quite right too. It is largely for these reasons that I will never support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders's protectionist policies in the United States, but it is perhaps indicative of US politics that the election there became about personalities rather than policies.
But the longer the debate goes on, the more we are losing sight of all of this. It is not about the opportunities that Brexit provides any more. It is about virtue signalling and labelling Leave voters as racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. One person even told me recently that:
I don't think this is true, and nor is the standard of this debate good for our country. What we need is to get on with Brexit. Because not doing so will not allow us to see the opportunities that Brexit is offering. Instead, the longer we dilly-dally, the more we can go on posturing about how "racist old white people" have "ruined" the country. That is not what I want to see. I want to see a United Kingdom making the opportunities work. Because, as Robin Bengtsson sang on Saturday, "I Can't Go On".
Finally.
In the 9 months since the referendum, the political landscape, both at home and abroad, has changed substantially. On the morning after the referendum, Jeremy Corbyn called for the immediate triggering of Article 50, something which many people forget. A couple of hours later, David Cameron announced he would be resigning as Prime Minister. It is, perhaps, a testament to the organisation and the rules of the Conservative Party (which have been around since 2001) that the whole process of finding candidates only took two weeks, and the system, whereupon candidates are nominated by MPs and then the final two are put to the party's membership. That Andrea Leadsom, my pick for leader, had to withdraw was unfortunate, but it has to be said it looked inevitable after she walked into the trap of The Times. The Labour Party also had a leadership election, but the less said about that mess, the better.
Then, we had the intervention of Gina Miller, which, to the surprise of many, the High and then Supreme Courts agreed with, interpreting Article 50 differently to how pretty much everyone else did and stating that in order to enact Article 50, Parliament would have to vote for it based upon the rationale that the royal prerogative cannot be used to remove what was made law by Parliament. The only problem with this, however, is that Article 50 only states that a member state must "provide notification" of intention to withdraw. I have the view that the European Communities Act 1972 and Article 50 are two mutually exclusive events and thus I do not believe the ruling was correct. But now that it has passed, it is somewhat immaterial.
The problem with all of this is that the longer the posturing over this has gone on, the bigger the amount of virtue signalling and generalisation, and that all of this has led people to forget the real reasons that people voted to leave the EU. After all, let us not forget that if anybody was playing on fear in the referendum, it was Remain: our households are meant to lose £4,300 per year, don't forget, as well as World War III, the global Brexit recession, and the slaughtering of the first-born. OK, I lied: they never said the last one, but the tone of "project fear" was such that it would not have been out-of-place.
Cynics say that this is no better than the Leave campaign, talking about immigration and how they're all coming over here, stealing our jobs, and so on. But those who say that are guilty of conflating the official and unofficial Leave campaigns. The official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, did nothing of the sport. Yes, immigration was the trump card of the Leave campaign (because there really was no credible defence Remain could offer), but the argument put forward by the Vote Leave was not one of reducing immigration, but only seeking to end the postcode lottery of free movement of people from within the EU.
In fact, I will take this opportunity to quote this bit of Gisela Stuart's speech in the House of Commons on 31 January, which acts as mythbusting:
"I chaired the official leave campaign. The leave campaign was clear that it was about taking back control of our borders. That meant we wanted an immigration policy based not on geography, but on skills and economic need. We wanted to take back control of our laws and of our trade negotiations. I also happen to think that the Government should actually honour the election pledge that was made that [...] money saved from not making direct contributions to the EU should go to the NHS, which is short of money."
All of this posturing, however, including the "missing NHS money" (which, as you will note above, Gisela Stuart has not backed down on), has led to people forgetting the positive vision that was set out as a basis for leaving. I include myself in this. When we look at the "Wirtschaftswunder" between 1945 and 1957, and indeed, the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s, it goes to indicate what can happen when you deregulate your economy. European regulations, not least on a political and economic level, have stifled our economy for decades now. We don't live in an era of regional trading blocs. In the last 30 years, we have seen a breakdown of the USSR and Yugoslavia - both protectionist trading blocs. The EU is such a protectionist trading bloc. We live in a globalised world - as the 6th Doctor (Colin Baker) puts it - "whether you like it or not". For our youth - my generation - the dream is no longer to work for MNCs, but to create new ones. We still have a fantastic entrepreneurial spirit in this country, and it's time that what we do is to deregulate our economy massively. By leaving the EU, we have a fantastic opportunity to do that. The trade deals of the EU are lower than many other nations - even if you include the value of the single market.
Even at a more micro level, when we look at the tariffs that are placed on imports coming into the EU, and the disastrous buffer stock schemes, which combine to push up the prices of agricultural produce somewhere between 10% and 20%, hurt consumers. That is, of course, not even taking into account the fact that the African producers are finding it harder to sell their goods within the EU. We have such a fantastic opportunity, seeing as how an independent nation outside of the EU, as the United Kingdom will become, will be able to do so. Only a government of complete incompetence would slap tariffs on these new produces. This will, of course, drive down inflation - and quite right too. It is largely for these reasons that I will never support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders's protectionist policies in the United States, but it is perhaps indicative of US politics that the election there became about personalities rather than policies.
But the longer the debate goes on, the more we are losing sight of all of this. It is not about the opportunities that Brexit provides any more. It is about virtue signalling and labelling Leave voters as racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. One person even told me recently that:
"The same people who insist "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman are the same people who voted for Brexit."
I don't think this is true, and nor is the standard of this debate good for our country. What we need is to get on with Brexit. Because not doing so will not allow us to see the opportunities that Brexit is offering. Instead, the longer we dilly-dally, the more we can go on posturing about how "racist old white people" have "ruined" the country. That is not what I want to see. I want to see a United Kingdom making the opportunities work. Because, as Robin Bengtsson sang on Saturday, "I Can't Go On".
