Tales from BrExitWorld: Laughing at the Holocaust

I had trouble sleeping last night – woke up about 4am, then just couldn’t get back to sleep. While I lay there, my mind drifting, it seemed to me that I could hear laughing…in some way at the holocaust. Well…give me 1,500 words, and let’s see if I can explain it any better than that.

Today, the 18th November, is Alan Moore’s 63rd birthday. Perhaps unsurprisingly this week I found myself drawn back to watch the film version of his classic ‘V for Vendetta’ ten years since it was released. As much as I was devouring the very different comic when it was being issued by DC Comics, I always found the film, written by the Wachowskis, to be nonetheless very powerful and appealing in its own right. One of Moore’s many criticisms of the film’s script, was that it translated the story of anarchy versus fascism into a US political debate (albeit staying in the setting of London). I can remember the promotional material when the comic came out– the slogan ‘Welcome to Fascist Britain, 1997’ seemed prophetic then, living through Thatcher’s government, as much as I would argue that, after this past year, the film now seems prophetic. The vision of a Fascist Britain, governed by a thuggish breakaway from the Conservative Party (Norsefire), requiring swearing of Articles of Allegiance, with High Chancellor Adam Suttler (beautifully played by John Hurt) strikes a chord with both BrExit England and President-Elect Trump’s New America.

The reports of racist attacks in the US (and elsewhere) may not be as quantifiable as the post-BrExit vote spike in violence observed in Britain (at least not until August 2017, when the figures are annually released by the US Government) and therefore dissembling by Trump supporters that the incidents are all hoaxes sadly gains some traction in the absence of official collated data, but it does now seem that this type of aggressive behaviour has in the minds of some been given a legitimacy due to the poor quality of candidate about to enter the White House on January 20th. Already the protesters are appearing with rhythmic placards: ‘No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA’. But there are deniers spreading across social media, saying ‘it ain’t so’ – questioning whether stories are hoaxes (Breitbart News being particularly keen to push that angle, of course, as they have been one of the most incendiary outlets for support for Trump since the start), unfortunately fed by a component of the population that either wishes to defend its decision or can’t bring themselves to believe the horror of what has come to take up residence in Washington D.C.: from ‘oh now, it can’t be so bad, he’ll be held in check’ to the mind-numbing and naively destructive ‘it can’t be bad, change is a good thing – right?’. By doing so, they are helping lay a foundation of skepticism to greet any future reports of abuses or other incidents – and inadvertently become apologists for white supremacists.

In a recent post I drew attention to the similarity of the wins by Trump, BrExit and the No campaign against Scottish independence, and others have been drawing other connections. A week ago, we all noted the photo of Trump with Farage in the foyer of Trump Towers with the gauche golden lift in the background, looking fresh as though plucked from a luxury hotel in China. Trump had even had Farage at one of his rallies, and referred to his prospective win of the White House as being “BrExit plus plus plus” – so the link between the two was clear. But a recent article (https://wildernessofpeace.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/cresting-the-rising-tide/#more-4060 – screen grab above from Wings Over Scotland’s repost) had another image from the same golden lift photoshoot, with a mob of other BrExit steerers surrounding the two, all with pedigrees for opposing the Scottish independence vote, as well. Take a long look at them: that group got three for three, and – mostly in this year – have between them made the world unrecognisable.

Farage seems to have upset the bumbling Conservative Government by being far higher up Trump’s speed-dial list than them, to such an extent that not only is he being asked if he will rejoin the Conservative Party (which he left in 1992 after Major signed the Maastricht Treaty), but there is also a suggestion that he may be made a Lord. On the one hand, it might seem like he is being shunted sideways, patted on the head and told to be quiet by Theresa – but then again he would provide a strong pro-BrExit voice in the House of Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a majority. Theresa May would need such an advocate for a hard BrExit in that house…and might feel that it would finally be getting him to do some work to deal with the consequences of the BrExit campaign that he had been building towards for years and finally won in June this year. Farage – like Trump – was always difficult to take seriously, although the media (in particular the BBC) seemed dangerously entranced by him long before he had an elected MP for his party. But, as Carolyn Leckie’s piece ‘Beware the rise of Fascism in UK and US’ noted the day before Trump’s election, fascism does not come wearing its trappings on its sleeve, with obvious monsters at its head – it is presented by amiable harmless-looking buffoons, it lulls, befriends, and acts as the only friend for the poor and frustrated…even if it is plainly clothed in wealth and elitist privilege.

Amongst the voices denying that BrExit and Trump’s election are a dangerous surge to the right (nicely labelled with the inoffensive ‘alt right’ caption), I can’t help but hear a laughter of derision at the comparison: ‘why no, that’s not us, dear boy, of course not…!!’ That psychology that makes people believe that bad things only happen to (or are done by) ‘other people’ can turn a standard that everyone should be measuring themselves against, into a standard that is just for ‘those other people’ to keep themselves in check with.

‘It happens to other people – not us.’ That passive racism so well-exhibited by Generation WW (who were taught it as part of wartime propaganda) that it was somehow exclusively ‘a German thing’, blinds us to such threats coming from anywhere else – especially close to home. Certainly Generation WW was willingly blind to just how keen a population the Third Reich would have found in Britain to exercise some of those racial purity laws – and if THAT generation could be in denial, given their proximity to those events, what about more recent generations, that have been so distanced in time from the entire experience of that war? They may not laugh at the thought of the holocaust being homegrown as easily in Britain after a banking collapse (as it was in Germany 80 years earlier), but they still desperately need to not see the commonality. And it is hard not to see it in the context of the holocaust, for what is to come.

In Germany, at least, they teach the horrors of that war and why totalitarianism must never take hold there again – elsewhere, where countries don’t feel they have to take responsibility for their anti-semitism or racism at the same time in history (because, you know, it wasn’t ‘their’ racism that was causing all the problems of the war, right?) a smug complacency develops – ‘their’ racial intolerance is Ok – they’ve got it under control – its just a bit of ‘banter’, right? All the usual excuses that apologists for intolerance deploy to deflect criticism, happening on a national level: ‘it doesn’t happen here – it happens to other people – it simply wouldn’t happen here, you know – because, of course, we’re BETTER than that other country that started the war…’ and the hypocrisy of that simplistic justification is completely lost on them, as they slowly start to move back to the dangerous mindset that sets all the wheels back in motion again.

Of course, it is hysterical and unreasonable to leap to Nazi Germany as a comparison for Trump or Farage – of course it is. Unfortunately, history gives us absolutely no better comparator. Those people who warned us about not learning the lessons of history – particularly with reference to the Third Reich – have sadly been vindicated.  In this context, I thought Farage’s suggestion that Trump restore the bust of Winston Churchill to the White House to be somewhat inappropriate: as much as it was symbolic of a link and that mythical ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US, I’m not really sure that Churchill would approve of Farage himself, given that he represents the rise of the same political threat that Churchill spent so much of his energy fighting against during the war, but hey ho…irony sleeps for noone.

For myself, I am just starting to find it funny – almost as funny as BrExit – because the whole thing of such a dark, hideous disaster, underpinned by such base stupidity and denial is preposterous. Especially with the war of words between those saying ‘No…it can’t be THAT bad…change is good, right?’ and the others going ‘You have no IDEA how bad this really really is!!!’ – that is – in and of itself, funny.

The holocaust is very much the ‘poster boy’ event for mass atrocities resulting from such racial (and other) discrimination – the sheer scale of its numbers meant to intone immediate solemn agreement from all that ‘IT’ should never happen again. And yet…it seems that in practice it is not having that effect on a significant number of the global population. I mean, if 6 million dead were not enough to get the lesson learned last time…then what is? How much more death do we need the next time – how high the mountains of bodies to be digitally recorded in colour, so superior to those old black and white Pathe wartime newsreels – to have a chance of the lesson sticking? If THAT many people dying isn’t enough of a warning to tell you that this is the way things go (so don’t even start on that path by voting in leaders advocating such racist policies) then what is the magic magic number that will be? What is the magic number that does the trick, so people realise that the lesson from history is not a restricted ‘discriminate even more against people in other countries called Germany’ but a very simple and encompassing ‘do not go there ever again – because anybody can do that’?

And its not like there were not the accounts to bring the point home – Pastor Niemoller, for one – although perhaps today he would instead be saying “first they came for the Muslims, then they came for the women…” Yet it was not enough to give enough people pause to think. And of course – as long as people can externalise those uncomfortable parts of the narrative to apply to others, and not them, then the lessons from history will continue to go unheeded – and voters will still be exploited by smiling right wing politicians who know they can easily take advantage of them to gain power.

The pictures outside the golden lift in NYC are naked triumphalism from those who do not care to sit back in the shadows anymore – they’ve won, and as far as they are concerned, they have remade the world in their image – what can anyone do against them now? In the coming years they will drive the US’s media to follow Breitbart News as a legitimised model, and slowly start to dumb down the nation’s attitudes into bestial savagery.

Happy Birthday, Alan – as Bart Simpson recently noted on his blackboard, ‘Being Right Sucks’.

 

“Immigrants. Muslims. Homosexuals. Terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith. I’m a god-fearing Englishman and I’m goddamn proud of it.” (Lewis Prothero, the Voice of London, V for Vendetta, 2006 motion picture – or maybe also the Daily Mail editorial, any day of the week)

Advertisements

Tales from BrExitLand: Repucalypse Now – An Ill Wind and a Little Local Trouble in the Colonies

The son of an illegal Scottish immigrant to the US (Mary Ann MacLeod from Lewis, see May 21st 2016 article in The National  http://www.thenational.scot/news/the-mysterious-mary-trump-the-full-untold-story-of-how-a-young-scotswoman-escaped-to-new-york-and-raised-a-us-presidential-candidate.17824 ) won the US election this morning and is scheduled to become the 45th President of the USA on January 20th 2017, the oldest (at 70) first term president that the country has ever had.

Springburn-born Craig Ferguson (now a naturalised US citizen during his ten year stint presenting The Late Late Show on CBS) apparently made much political capital on his show out of pointing out that to ‘trump’ in Scots meant to fart. This was a surprise to me, as I had only come across the expression in some districts in England during my life (and a search on Google reveals only references to its use in Wales, Norfolk and the north of England). And it is indeed hard not to see his election as a wind of ill omen for the world.

Like the Scottish Independence Referendum of September 2014 and the June 2016 EU Referendum, this was an essentially binary vote, with only two real choices. Perhaps another similarity between the two other political choices was that the two main options were not the choice that many people wanted to have – the unusually high number of 6 million ‘Other’ votes that did not go the way of Trump or Clinton would seem to testify to that. At the end, Hillary emphatically won all the ethnic demographics – except for the white one, which formed 70% of the voters, where she only had 37% support. Was it perhaps an unjustifiable fear of feminism and female leaders (see http://wp.me/p4SdYV-6Y ) that drove this section of the electorate, especially when one sees that Trump won 7 out of every 10 non-college-educated male white vote. Exit polls also indicated that women voted Democrat in much higher numbers than they voted Republican…as one might expect, given the prevalence of Trump’s misogyny the last weeks of the campaign.

All three of these binary votes in as many years were negative votes, against openness, inclusion, hope and progressives, the decisive mass vote of the over 45s overwhelming the wishes of the younger electorate. All three were also characterised by a remarkable disregard for checking facts – or more a disinterest, either by the media or the majority of the voting public, in those same facts.

The Scottish Independence Referendum had a barrage of unchecked facts – but in a very polarised sense: Better Together’s howlers went almost universally ignored, as they were in keeping with the narrative that the press wished to present, whereas the Scottish Government’s 670 page White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ was attacked in microscopic (and ludicrous) detail. (Yet note the contrast in level of detail offered between the Yes campaign for an independent Scotland and the Leave campaign to exit the EU, where they did not even have a Plan ‘A’.)

Interestingly, the media’s polarity did have the unexpected effect of triggering a rapid drift away of its clients, as members of the public became increasingly disillusioned by what they were being told by the mainstream news outlets: the subsequent engagement of people in Scotland with online and independent news media to get an alternative perspective that felt (a little) less biased, resulted in a plunge in newspaper sales (except for the Sunday Herald, which doubled its previous year’s sales, in the 4 months after it declared for Scottish independence) in parallel with an emergence of online sources as the most-trusted sources of news. [This dimension will be explored separately within the forthcoming instalment of the review of modern Scotland’s Thrie/Four Estaits ‘The Death of Scotland’s Post-War Dream, Part 3’.]

The two plebiscites of 2016 effectively went to the core of the identity of former imperial powers (see Gore Vidal if you want to contest that), they harken to the power of a bygone mythical age of greatness, and a garden of plenty which the advocates can restore you to. Well…that’s not exactly unusual in politics. But with BrExit and the US election, there was more of a rejection of analysis of any fact-checking (whether by TV stations or other media sources) in favour of empty jingoistic slogans – no matter how much Trump was fact-checked and shown to be lying on a grand scale with his fragments of sentences, his fatuously dismissive behaviour and salvation slogans carried greater force. BrExit’s ‘Leave’ campaign leaders went further, resorting to casual dismissal of expert opinions in the face of their absurd claims: “People in this country have had enough of experts” quoth Michael Gove (somewhat ironically, given that as a former education secretary, he should have had some faith in the products of the education system that he was overseeing…unless he felt that the EU were in some magical way forcing his education system to produce unreliable experts, perhaps?).

This dismissal is an insidious one of anti-intellectualism, whereby instinct and anecdote is endowed with greater (inevitably mystical) power than facts, data, or authorities that have the education and specialist training in a field that allows them to consider it objectively – so that you don’t have to go through all that training to do that for yourself. Stephen Colbert went so far as to coin the term ‘truthiness’ – Wikipedia defines this as “a quality characterising a ‘truth’ that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively ‘from the gut’ or because it ‘feels right’ without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.” In other words, it presents you with a legitimate licence to disregard everything you wish – spirituality and religion sweep away facts: the final triumph of Magic over Science. It brooks no argument against it – because it does not come from reason.

Fear is invariably invoked in politics – which is rarely helpful, as it leads to irrational decisions, and that is one of the reasons that the Yes campaign avoided utilising it even in the face of their opponents relentless use of nothing else. But fear multiplied by nonsense just creates chaos which is socially destabilising – it creates a level of frustration which (as Yoda might point out in sentences Trump can only listen to with envy for their coherence) leads to hate, and then violence. England in particular has seen the rise of this phenomenon in the wake of the BrExit result seemingly ‘legitimising’ racism as part of mainstream political discourse.

Will misogyny similarly rise in the USA in response to the role model that has been elected to their highest political office? One can only hope not – but with much less certainty than yesterday morning.

 

“…it’s an ill wind blaws naebody gude.” (Rob Roy, Sir Walter Scott)

Tales from BrExitLand: BrExit and the New Darien, An ‘Equivalent’ for the 1651 Navigation Act

Alex Harvey was a remarkable musician – Glasgow-born, a committed pacifist, toured with the Beatles in Hamburg, eclectically famous reworkings of Jacques Brel’s tango ‘Next’ and Tom Jones’ ‘Delilah’ with his proto-punk Sensational Alex Harvey Band. Hearing his music, I realised everything that I wanted to do as a musician had already been done – and brilliantly well. Sadly, I put down my guitar, and turned my attention elsewhere…

Alex also did a song called ‘Roman Wall Blues’. In it, he imagined himself as a legionnaire guarding the wall as the rain lashed down on him from Scotland, feeling miserable, fed up, and wishing he could go home. It’s a perspective of the Roman Empire’s interface with (what would become) Scotland that I reflect on, when I hear the ‘Scottish cringe’ version of that history. You could say that Scotland (let’s keep those geopolitical concepts contemporary) was ‘more trouble than it was worth’ for the Romans to subjugate. But that description holds true whether you think it was militarily too difficult to conquer (more trouble), or just too miserable to bother taking (not worth enough). Your interpretation tends to be coloured by whether you think Scotland has/had intrinsic value, or only had value when incorporated into something larger – an Empire. Alex’s Roman legionnaire had a very clear opinion on the subject. And the Romans – one could perhaps say – were the first serious attempt at a Europe-wide empire.

I find myself reflecting on this subjectivity of perspective – and the political dimension of such perspectives – in the light of BrExit. It reminds me very much of another subjective historical event that is often trotted out by unionists with the weary predictability of Scotland ‘not being worth the Romans conquering’ – a little story called the Darien Project.

The enacting of Westminster’s Navigation Act of 1651 followed a period of decline in Scotland’s fortunes since the point of the Union of the Crowns almost 15 years earlier. The ensuing years had seen Scotland become poorer, suffering from its new close association with its neighbour through being dragged into England’s wars on other countries (does this scenario sound familiar, yet?), where before Scotland had separate and secure international alliances. Westminster’s Navigation Act, often enforced with gunboat diplomacy, had the effect of circumscribing Scotland’s international trade, placing an ever-tightening iron grip on her economy. Having lost her only colony – Nova Scotia – in 1632 (as a result of England’s war with France), Scotland therefore desperately needed a new colony to develop international commerce with, without being ringfenced and suffocated. The plan was to form a colony in central America (what today is the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién), in order to establish trading links with Africa and the Far East. But the East India Company was keen to preserve its monopoly in traffic from these territories, and applied pressure on the King in London, and those who had invested in this bold scheme, to withdraw their support. This left Scotland no choice but to be the sole investor in this ambitious project: in the face of disappearing external investment in the scheme, the only option remaining was for the people themselves to take the financial risk entirely on themselves.

It seems remarkable in this day and age that such a venture was entirely privately-supported (therefore zero national debt entailed), by all walks of Scottish society. Yet perhaps this reflects that in this time of sharp national decline, it must have been a comparatively easy and straightforward decision…there being no other option left to the people except to sit and watch the situation deteriorate more as they were further starved of commerce by the powers in London. In this scenario, Darien was a last throw of the dice for a country being bullied by its supposed ‘ally’ – the other alternative would have been to respond with similar gunboat diplomacy. As a population of only around 1 million at the time, there would seem to have been some strong resentment of the treatment of them by both the King and Parliament, for the Scots to so enthusiastically have bought into the Darien scheme, raising £400K in a few weeks – equivalent to 20% of the nation’s wealth at the time – from all walks of society, so that every lowland Scotland family was affected or linked in some direct way to the outcome of Darien.

Tellingly, the first ships set out in secret from Leith, going the long way round the north of Scotland to start their journey west, anticipating that they would be attacked by English warships as part of the ongoing ‘gunboat diplomacy’ of the Westminster Navigation Act which had cost Scotland so many ships by that stage. Ultimately, the project failed, in large part due to the King and Parliament in London: the intended initial trade with the West Indies and North America, prior to the trade routes west being established, did not materialise, because the King had forbidden those colonies to trade – or even communicate – with the new colony, for fear of upsetting either the Spanish (who had neighbouring holdings) or the East India Company. The colony died in disease and isolation, further betrayed by their King in London.

Although the Darien Project was a bold gamble by the people of Scotland…it seems somehow less bold when you consider that it was a gamble made by a People with no remaining choices.

The cost, however, was much greater than one of money. As unrest at London’s treatment of the Darien colony increased in Scotland, the monarchy in London, in an attempt to stem the increasing likelihood of a war with Scotland that they could ill afford, initiated the Union of the Parliaments. They knew that many of the members of the Scottish Parliament (including some exceptionally wealthy landowners) had invested heavily in Darien, therefore would be susceptible to some financial leverage – in particular a ‘get out of jail free’ card to write off their losses. Hence Article 14 of the Treaty of Union was ‘The Bribe’ (called ‘The Equivalent’, it consisted of £398,085 and 10 shillings) to pay off the debts (and more, in some cases) in the event of union being agreed to by the Scottish Parliament.

Daniel Defoe (known today as the author of the novel ‘Robinson Crusoe’) was at that time a spy, and this quote from him summed up the clear intentions of the Union of the Parliaments – “ …all that is dear to us, daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English.

In one smooth manoeuvre – probably not even an intended outcome from the hostile approaches to Darien – London rid itself of a potential war on its doorstep (with the possible result of asserting a different monarchy on a London throne), and acquired a truly lucrative asset for its long-term future. The members of the Scottish Parliament were plied with financial promises until the required numbers were achieved to vote through the Act of Union, in spite of the riots in protest throughout the country, so that they could salvage their own personal financial resources – Scotland itself was still in credit at the time of union, and not (as widely stated within more pejorative accounts of Darien) a ‘bankrupt nation’. The bells of St Giles rang ‘Oh why am I so sad on my wedding day’, the signatories were chased through the streets of Edinburgh by an angry mob, ultimately forced to sign the act (so it is said) in a baker’s shop off Edinburgh’s Royal Mile.

Here comes the subjectivity of perspective, and Alex Harvey’s legionnaire: today, the Darien Project is often propounded by unionists as being ‘proof’ of either Scots being incapable of running a project or of the quite exceptional generosity of the English in bailing them out – but (of course) usually omitting the negative role played by the king in London at the time, in attempting to ensure that the project would fail. Scott Minto (see quote at end) deals with the subject more extensively in the context of political revisionism, pointing out that rather than an example of great charity, it is “more akin to having your neighbour beat you with a baseball bat in order to gain access to your home, only to chastise you and claim you should be grateful for the first-aid they administered after they’d got your keys” – but notes that the issue was all about access to international trade.

And so we come – perhaps less than seamlessly – to BrExit, which presents a remarkably similar threat of restricted trade access as the Navigation Act did almost 400 years ago. But the world has changed – as has Scotland: the interconnectedness of the modern global marketplace prevents such embargos as could be initiated by London centuries ago – unless we are isolated within an inward-looking UK outside of the EU.

This time we need no Darien Project as a gamble for a lifeline to our own economic salvation. In this context, if Article 50 is invoked by the Westminster Government to pull Scotland backwards out of Europe, it will again have the effect – whether intentional or otherwise is irrelevant – of once again threatening Scotland’s international trade economy. This time we need no colony, no great gamble, no declaration of war (as was considered back in the early 1700s) to defend ourselves. Our economy is strong, so strong that we can entirely discount the oil and gas sector (when the oil price is low, it still only provides added extras to a healthy economy, and does no harm – indeed quite the reverse), and still have the same living standards as the rest of the UK (the GDP per person is almost identical to the UK, even when Scotland’s oil and gas revenues are excluded), and our economy is more evenly spread with far less reliance on financial services than the rest of the UK – and ready for independence. We are a net export economy (not a net import one as per our southern neighbours, who are overly dependent on their financial services sector), and therefore far more able to stand on our own feet.

Subjectivity of perspective means that no doubt unionists would argue that Scotland has to stay in the UK outside of the EU to preserve its future…meaning, to preserve the future of the UK, not the future of Scotland. Other perspectives would say that Britain has become a toxic thing to be associated with, particularly in the last 20-30 years.

Staying with Britain has now become the Worst of all Worlds, representing the worst possible future for Scotland. It’s time to move on from trade blockades – whether through legislation or gunboats – and move away from the imperial xenophobia of our island neighbour.

Alex Harvey’s legionnaire would be only too happy to agree.

 

“…would you consider the Union as an act of rescue from England towards Scotland? It is, I’d venture, more akin to having your neighbour beat you with a baseball bat in order to gain access to your home, only to chastise you and claim you should be grateful for the first-aid they administered after they’d got your keys. To describe the Union, as Professor Chalmers did this week, as a benefit that had ‘convinced the  business classes that they needed the military protection of the Royal Navy if they were to benefit from the new riches that colonialism promised’ is to stretch the truth to breaking point. In reality Scotland’s nobles were bullied and bribed into signing the treaty by their more powerful neighbour, and when they none-too-reluctantly acquiesced it wasn’t for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

“Scotland was not bankrupt and could have continued on as an independent nation. But being in the Union benefited Scotland by removing the impact of the Navigation Acts (allowing the Scots to trade with the colonies) and removing the threat of English privateers commandeering or destroying Scottish shipping. Access to trade – the same goal pursued by the Darien Scheme – was what brought Scotland into union with England, not some mythological pride in “Britishness”.” (Scott Minto, “Skintland”, Darien and the mythology of the BritNats, 14/4/2012, http://wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-essay-skintland-britnat-mythology-and-the-darien-scheme/ )

Tales from BrExitLand: From Supreme Court to Supreme Irony…and ‘They think it’s all over’?

It may be a bizarre piece of PR advice (or control), but Theresa May increasingly resembles Lou Beale in press photographs. And yet she lacks the ‘loveable’ old Eastenders matriarch’s control and dominant personality. The High Court result last week was not a huge surprise, but how clueless it made the Prime Minister appear, was.

To recap, a legal challenge had been made to Theresa May’s use of the arcane Royal Prerogative to circumvent Westminster from making the decision as to whether or not to trigger Article 50 and the ensuing two year sprint to leave the EU. The legal appeal was successful, in the eyes of the three High Court Judges (subsequently labelled ‘enemies of the people’ in the Daily Mail headline the next day) because parliament is sovereign (note the distinct difference that ‘The People’ are sovereign in Scotland), and the rights of people living in the UK could not be changed without the permission of parliament. This means that, rather than parliament only voting on the package negotiated by the Conservative Government, parliament now has to decide whether or not to enact Article 50 on the basis of an advisory referendum at all.

Suddenly the Westminster government is even more on the back foot than it looked before, with their own pet anti-Christ Farage promising a Second Coming if there is a ‘betrayal’ of the ‘Full English BrExit’ vote, the cabinet scrabbling to still look credible while promising to appeal the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. And, you know, if that fails, the Conservative Government still have one place  that they can turn to, in order to get permission to leave the EU without looking to Parliament: that’s right – the European Court. Ah, anybody smell the scent of irony, lightly lying on the air around the cooling last autumn barbecue of 2016? A ‘Leave’ campaign stridently proclaiming their outrage at EU legislators passing ‘insane laws’ overruling ‘our own sensible law courts’, then coming in supplication to that same European Court to ask permission to overrule those same courts decision on the most insane legislation of all – the determined act of self-harm that is the UK leaving the EU (with or without parliamentary scrutiny).

From Supreme Court to supreme irony. Bravo, for ‘taking back our courts’, people. You’re doing a fine job of building confidence, winning the Peace after the vote, and showing everyone how in control you are.

Theresa must have thought she was playing a winning hand, taking the UKIP extreme position on BrExit, and thus removing UKIP’s constituency. UKIP representatives in punch-ups, declaring the party was ungovernable without Farage…’May the Farce be with UKIP’, Theresa must have hoped, and it certainly looked as though she had seen off the biggest threat to Conservative seats. But now suddenly the prospect looms of Westminster having to debate enacting Article 50 – and all the potential damage that entails.

Nothing is as important to the Conservative Party, as their own divisions over Europe. So, although theoretically if the party whip is brought out, the majority government should still win. But traditionally the Conservatives are SO split on the issue, that that is far from certain: the resignation of Stephen Phillips, the incumbent MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham directly following the High Court decision is only the top of the iceberg – especially when you consider he was pro-Leave. Again, I say nothing is as important to the Conservative Party, as their own divisions over Europe, and they have a wide spectrum of positions on that subject – so much so that it is hard to know whether they would vote for something that is not their preferred flavour, but hold out for a revised version, or ‘hold the nose’ as the division bell rings. A subject so close to their hearts…yet wanting (one would presume?) to appear ‘listening’ to their constituents opinions for the purpose of reelection – a heady and toxic brew of conflicts indeed.

This, surely, is what May was wanting to avoid: she knows the issue could rend the Conservative Party asunder, rather than emasculating UKIP, as she had hoped. So, it will be interesting to see how the Conservative MPs  vote – no matter how bullishly loyalty is demanded, there will be dissenters, and in significant numbers. That means support from other parties will be required to get parliament approval.

The Labour Party split, one might have thought, would be hard to calculate, given their ambiguous role in the EU Referendum campaign. But then Jeremy Corbyn came out critical of the government’s position, and straightaway with sad predictability the majority of Labour MPs declared they would be unquestioningly supporting the government – just to be contrary to poor old Jeremy. sigh. Extinction beckons…

And what of Scotland’s MPs? Well, the Unionist Scottish MPs – all 3 of them: the Liar, the Fool and the Puppet – will vote as irrelevantly as their numbers suggest. But what of the oh-so-Machiavellian (that’s shorthand for ‘being prepared’) SNP? It has been a long journey from the position they had just prior to last year’s General Election, when they appeared poised to conditionally open the door of 10 Downing Street to Ed Milliband, to now, cast as gatekeepers again (in the absence of any other actual parliamentary opposition in Westminster) but this time for a softened BrExit? How times change. But what concessions might the block of over 50 SNP MPs win, in exchange for their deciding votes on an Art8icle 50 package brought by the Conservatives? What deals could the SNP broker, in return for their vote for Article 50, without seeming to be undemocratic? The SNP have thus far striven to be the party acting ‘above board’, campaigning for a Remain vote for the good of the whole of the UK, and it would be tough to maintain that current public stock of integrity, if they are seen to be subsequently attaching conditions for Scotland while supporting England cancelling its (sub)membership of the EU.

In terms of Scottish independence, if Article 50 is stopped, then that removes the immediate threat which opens the door for the second referendum. So – although the government will no doubt appeal the High Court’s decision – it all comes down to whether May can get enough of her MPs to vote for enacting Article 50 or not. That’s still a big question – if her party thinks she is weak, she could have a revolt – but anyone doing so could be accused of not respecting England’s vote in the referendum, which could be political suicide for anyone going against her. The way that it will go, probably comes down to just how much control Theresa May actually has over her party – and to what extent she is exactly what she has appeared to be: a directionless puppet who has wed herself to carrying out UKIP’s policy, in the disguise of ‘people’s democratic champion’. Or does Lou Beale’s bullish resolve and cunning lie beneath her Lou Beale exterior?

One thing is for sure – if her fellow Conservatives smell a hint of weakness that she might not win the vote, it will be like blood to a pack of hunting dogs, and she will be consigned to history more quickly than Thatcher’s premiereship was by Geoffrey Howe.

Well.

Let’s see, shall we?

“When it comes to the vote, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru will likely be against and you would think the Liberals would too, but they have a propensity to get big decisions wrong. The SNP can say Scotland voted Remain and so we will. Plaid and the Greens can stand on principle and the Tories will call for party unity to respect the Leave vote. Tory rebels will vote against in small but significant numbers, which will be important as that means Labour MPs will be needed to vote Brexit through and, given their leadership’s inability to campaign for Remain, it will be interesting to see how many Labour MPs decide to back the Government. If the Westminster parliament was to block Article 50, it would be akin to bringing UKIP back from the dead, there would be a UK democratic meltdown and widespread calls for Scotland to be thrown out of the UK. UKIP will have at least 45 per cent of the vote to play with and that is why Theresa May is going for a hard Brexit: she can’t be seen to be soft on immigration and risk splitting her own party in the face of potential Labour or UKIP revivals.” (Gordon Macintyre-Kemp, 4/11/2016)