Better late ...?

 Within the past hour it has been announced that a trade deal between the UK and the EU has been concluded. I say 'concluded' but of course all we have is agreement at the top level, and ratification by the governments must follow. Nonetheless, it enables all of us who believe in the benefits of trade, co-operation and friendship between nations to breathe a huge sigh of relief. The alternative - trading on WTO rules, tariffs and quotas and endless red tape (though there will be plenty of that anyway) and enormous scope for arguments, bans, blockades etc - was regarded by pretty well everyone as unthinkable. Not that this prevented a hard core of nutters from desiring it and no doubt the conspiracy theorists will be hard at work linking the deal with covid-19 and arguing that any deal at all which entails a British prime minister signing the same document as a foreigner must be a betrayal of our sovereignty.

The Brexit referendum was held in the summer of 2016. Here we are, four and half years later and on the verge of completing the exit procedure and only now do we have a trade deal that establishes how business is to take place from 1st January. It is truly staggering that it has taken so long to bring about something that everyone (bar the nutters) profoundly wished. Imagine if this lackadaisical approach had applied to other great events in history, such as this one ...

Scene: The Forum in Ancient Rome. Around lunchtime. Enter a group of senators gingerly testing the sharpness of their daggers and wincing a bit.

Brutus: We agreed, are we not? Today, the Ides of March, we strike at tyranny and bring down Caesar!
Cassius: All of us have sworn to act without hesitation for the good of Rome! Only death can stop us! It must be now! It shall be now!
Decimus Brutus: Death to Caesar and glory to the Roman republic!
Cinna: Er, hold on a second chaps, we still haven't agreed on what colour our flag should be. I still say it should be green.
Casca: Red. My constituents will accept nothing less.
Trebonius: Only if it has a yellow diagonal.
Cassius: Yellow with grey spots. My final offer.
Casca: Impossible. I've been utterly reasonable so far about the order of stabbing and who gets to stand next to Brutus at the press conference afterwards but yellow is a step too far. I'm sorry, I'm withdrawing back to Pompeii.
Trebonius: Then I too withdraw to my estates in Sicily.
Brutus: Ok, alright, let's calm down. I'll send out for some pizzas and we can have a rethink. Ides of March next year alright for everyone?

Election Fever

Excitement is at hurricane level here in the streets of beautiful Ruislip, (reports our correspondent). Since dawn a long queue of eager voters have patiently waited for the polling stations to open. Flasks of coffee have been passed down the lines while smiling policemen have posed for photographs with the many street urchins drawn to the noise and bustle of this great state occasion. Trees are plastered with election posters and many in the streets proudly wear the rosettes of their chosen party. Surely the good people of this ancient borough have drawn together in strength and unity to celebrate their magnificent heritage .....

Umm, we interrupt our correspondent who has possibly failed to do sufficient research into the subject and seems to be relying on news stories relating to other elections in other countries, possibly from many years ago. Here is a more coherent report.

The apathy has reached a level that you could stir it with a spoon (reports our new correspondent who is sitting at his desk idly checking out his Facebook page) as the people of beautiful Ruislip drive to work, commute into central London, go shopping or take the kids to school on a typical and rather pleasant May morning. Some may vote today. Most will not. It makes not a jot of difference to anything at all. These are the elections for the European Parliament, an organisation that Britain will leave as part of its withdrawal from the European Union. Nobody has the slightest interest in anything the successful candidates may say or do. They never had much interest in the days when Britain was a keen member. The power in the EU continues to be with the governments of the 27 continuing members and, even should the referendum result of 2016 be overturned, will still be so albeit with a much diminished UK voice added.


Our Editor adds: The results will be known on Sunday and may or may not be brought to you here depending on whether any of our correspondents can be arsed to find out what they are.

Brexit: Deal or No Deal?

I wrote the following on 19th September and it seems fairly on the money, given the extraordinary political goings-on of the last few days.

And, speaking of change, we are limping up to the finish line in the botched job that is Britain's exit from membership of the EU. Will there be a last minute deal that satisfies all parties? Or will the die-hards sabotage whatever emerges from the late-night negotiations on the grounds that any deal approved by the EU must, de facto, be detrimental to the UK? I have a horrible feeling that this may the case.

After weeks of "Yes, we will have a deal" and "No, nothing has been finalised", a detailed document has at last been published by the Government and presented to the nation, as well as to the 27 countries comprising the rest of EU, for approval. Almost before the ink was dry, the coffee rings on page 14 had been smudged and the words "Oh bugger" inscribed on page 92, pages 145-167, the whole of Part II and most of the Appendix, then the arch-Brexiteers were ready with Cabinet resignations, letters of no confidence in Mrs. May and ringing declarations that the deal was the worst possible outcome and they could have done a much better job. The little inconvenience of the fact that B. Johnson and D. Davis and others were senior Cabinet ministers for much of the time that the negotiations have been supposed to be going on seems to have been passed over. Perhaps they were doing nothing at all but writing endless drafts of letters of no confidence and the like, ready for the big moment when they could express their shock and horror at whatever deal was reached.

I suppose, to be fair, the unease in the Labour party and the outright disapproval of the SNP mean that there is much in the deal to have shock and horror about. I haven't bothered to read it on the grounds that it may be binned within a few days.

I doubt if Britain has been as poorly treated by its political leaders for a very long time. We have a polarisation of positions that is unbridgeable. From those who, as hinted in my earlier piece, will reject anything that the EU accepts on principle to those who will nitpick about everything, to those who are attempting to cobble something, anything, together to avoid the nightmare of a no-deal, to those who wish we had never got ourselves into the ludicrous state, there is no common ground.

The Sheer Nastiness of the Brexiteers

A chance remark by one-time leader of the Conservative Party, Iain Duncan Smith, irritated me enormously this afternoon. Speaking after the first substantive deal in the long process to extricate the UK from membership of the EU, he said "They blinked first".

This innocuous comment has a huge undertone. For Smith and his ilk, the EU is something to be beaten, to get one over on, to face down and defeat. They reason that if it's good for the EU it must be bad for Britain.  Like the economists of the late 19c, convinced that no further significant technical progress in anything was likely, they see everything as entirely static - if one country is to do better, it can only do so because someone else is doing worse.

I wonder if when Smith, say, takes his car in for a service and is quoted a flat fee, does he rub his hands with glee afterwards and think "I certainly put one over on that garage mechanic, I would happily have paid £5 more" whilst the mechanic thinks "Wow what a  mug, I charged him £3 more than Juggins down the road would have done?". Or could it be that Smith is happy for someone who knows what they are doing to fix his car and the person doing the fixing is happy to be paid for it. In other words, that both parties emerge better off from the trade?

 Britain needs a strong and peaceful Europe and they need us. We should be working closely together towards a common end - the maintenance of societies which live under law, at peace with their neighbours and creating a sustainable prosperity (although I am increasingly doubtful if this latter can be achieved given our current technologies and the increasing despoliation of the biosphere).  The  "all foreigners are only out to get us and deserve a good kicking" attitudes of some in positions of power, given what we need to achieve through the negotiations, is like someone storming out of a tennis club that they have been a member of for many years, saying how stupid and ghastly all the other members are, and then demanding the right to play on the courts anyway but without paying for them. It ain't gonna work, Iain.

The End of the Affair

Today the British people abandoned the cause of European developement aimed at preventing centuries of hostile and competing nation states leading to militiarism turned its back on an outdated institution and regained its freedom.

We will continue to trade freely with the EU with full controls over our borders we haven't the faintest idea of whom our trading partners may be and whether we will be able to exert any more control than in the past

The interests of British nationals elsewhere in the EU will be fully respected under the new arrangements and millions of workers and pensioners need not fear that their rights to remain, work and receive health care will be in any way jeopardised We have no idea what will happen to them or to UK institutions and businesses that employ EU citizens or which are interlocked with the EU institutions.

We will retreat into being a closed and xenophobic society in which foreigners can be freely blamed for everything, just as they are in Trump's USA we will continue to uphold traditional British values of liberty and tolerance, just not quite as libertarian and tolerant as before

If the eastern frontiers of Europe crumble under Russian aggression, lack of investment and a renewed vicious nationalism, and slide into Balkans style conflicts with barbed wire frontiers and deportations, it's nothing to do with us. We could have promoted British values in Europe. Now we can only fulminate on the sidelines

The UK will continue to be a United Kingdom with the whole-hearted consent of all of its citizens Bye Bye Scotland, all the best

Brexit and Parliamentary Democracy

Funny thing, your Johnny referendum. Supposed to be the ultimate expression of the people's will. Overrides parliament. And yet in the vexed case of Brexit, the total lack of detail about what is to replace our membership of the EU demands the utmost involvement of parliament. The government grudgingly suggests that maybe there will a debate at the end of the negotiating process. The government, voted into power in 2015 on a platform of supporting British membership, not of leaving, now claims to have some sort of direct mandate. So a handful of MPs, nearly all of whom stood behind our membership of the EU, are now going to decide how we exit and parliament will get a chance to rubber-stamp it. And it really is a rubber stamp for the government has made it clear that parliament may not change anything that is negotiated.

Oh, and we are not allowed to know what it is that is being negotiated because that would jeopardise our bargaining position. Umm, we've already done that, fellers. We've given unconditional notice that we are out. We don't really have a negotiating position.

Maybe Mr Johnson, our make-it-up-on-the-spot Foreign Secretary can sort it all out. Or should we all invest in Irish citizenship while the going is good?

Staggering Up To The Finishing LIne

A referendum is not the same as a general election. With an election we know that in five years we have another chance to express our views; in the meantime the MPs themselves reflect and express the views of their constituents. With a referendum we are bound to a single decision and may never, or at least, not in our lifetimes, have the chance to change it. If the result of an election returns a government whose policies fill one with dread, there is always hope to reverse them. There is little hope of that with the EU referendum, especially if the result is to leave. For a reversal would require the EU to let us back in as well as a change of heart at home. On the other hand, if the vote is to remain there is nothing to stop the leave campaign from firing up again in a few years. This one-sidedness about the vote is a very good reason to ditch such exercises altogether, except where they are genuinely reversible for both sides.

The arguments are going on right up to the wire but I made up my mind a long time ago and have heard nothing to change it since; indeed, the vicious anti-immigration line taken by the leavers  (subtext: anti Black, anti Brown, anti Irish, anti Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh, any recognisable minority really) has only confirmed my views and even persuaded some on the leave side to switch. Listening and watching the news is now a form of agony; one is waiting for it all to be over and to know where we are. The don't-knows are so numerous that no opinion poll has any value. What sort of world will we wake up to on Friday?

Don't let foreigners tell you what to do.

Rupert Murdoch, that well known non-British person wants us to leave. So your choice is clear.

The EU Referendum 11 - Don't believe forecasts, believe my, er, forecast

Interviewed on BBC's Today radio programme this morning, leading Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith dismissed a forecast about to be released by the Treasury. The forecast is another dire warning about the economic consequences of the UK leaving the EU. Mr Smith's justification was simple. They did not forecast the crash in 2008 so why should anything they say be taken seriously now?

One little problem. I don't recall Mr Smith forecasting the crash either. So if the accuracy of past warnings is anything to go on, why should his forecast, that the UK will be alright if it leaves, be worth any more than that of people who spend all day analysing economic matters?

The EU Referendum 10 - 2000 years of history vs B. Johnson

Boris Johnson's latest, headline-grabbing, intervention in the referendum debate has been to compare the EU's unifying ambitions with those of Hitler. He does not directly accuse the EU Commission of building concentration camps, nor has he claimed to spot Angela Merkel donning a sinister black leather uniform and pointing at maps overlaid with arrows. Indeed, he was at pains to distinguish the methods of those running the EU and the Nazis. What makes them comparable, he says, is the aim of unifying Europe which has always ended "tragically".

Humm. Hard to know where to begin on this one. Of course the purpose of his remarks was to make a headline and associate "Hitler" and "EU" in the minds of voters. This is such a disgusting tactic that it is hard to take him seriously any more. Sadly, as he is the MP for my constituency I am stuck with him.

I do agree that when military leaders have attempted to conquer large parts of Europe it has tended to end badly. Equally I assume that Johnson is not saying that all unifications achieved in part or whole by military efforts in the past are tragic and should be undone. If he is then goodbye UK, welcome back the patchwork quilt of tribal areas that predominated (as far as we can tell) for hundreds of years before the Romans knocked it on the head in 44 AD.  And the same goes for nearly all of France, all of Germany, great chunks of Italy, slivers of Spain, etc. These countries emerged often from a constrained merger of peoples speaking different languages and with different cultures. And the processes often were tragic - think of the massacres in Southern France of the Cathars or the expulsion of Moors after the conquest of Andalucia.

What Johnson is expecting us to recall is the attempts in modern times to stamp one authority over the continent. This started with Napoleon, was inherited as an idea by Kaiser Wilhelm I and reached its ghastly apogee first under Hitler and then Stalin. But all this bloodshed and destruction was the result of wars between nation states. In each case there was an immediate military conflict between neighbours which developed into attempts to create a continental system. The EU, in total contrast, began after a terrible war had ended and represented a genuine attempt between ex-belligerents to find a new way of living together. Nothing has ever been done like it before. Countries have gradually surrendered sovereignty deliberately to further the project. Whether it will ever end in a United States of Europe is impossible to tell - I suspect the language and culture differences across the continent are too great for that, and the levels of economic development too far apart to assume that the richer countries will happily subsidise the poorer. But the effort to keep the project moving is entirely worthwhile. It takes Europe ever further from the nation state system that has arguably been a catastrophe. It puts Europe alongside the other great powerhouses of the 21st century - China, the US, India (and perhaps Russia). These states are all sufficiently large and diverse to be equivalent to continents that have come together in unifying projects. China's started a long time ago, even before the Romans popped over the Channel, and India's was forced on it after independence from British rule; but this does not invalidate the main thrust of this argument.

We are perhaps half way through the unification of Europe, a process that started under Rome, fell apart around 410 AD and has been stuttering and stop-starting ever since. It has taken 1600 years for Europe's internal borders to be agreed - can you imagine a war starting now over where a border should be (Former Yugoslavian countries and countries bordering on Russia excepted)? Yet such activity was commonplace and regarded as thoroughly glorious no more than a hundred years ago.

I find it amazing that Johnson was unable to articulate any of this right up to the moment he declared his support for the No campaign. These issues are so fundamental that he surely must always have felt that the EU was similar to a fascist dictatorship. The idea that the EU would move in the direction of an "ever closer union" has been established for years. So why did he not say all this last year? Or if it really came down the details of the settlement negotiated by his colleague David Cameron in February, then how he can be so dogmatic about it? - waiting to see the reuslts of that process can only imply that there was a good chance he would have approved the results, and therefore that he does not in any way at all think that his historical parallels hold water.

It is desperately sad that Mr Johnson, forever looking backwards at some glorious imagined past, has not got the imagination to look ahead and visualise a better future for us all, and has used his fine talents as a genuinely popular and charismatic politician to distort history for a short-term political cause that he does not really believe in.

The EU Referendum 9 - The teams line up

Having trouble making up your mind about the EU Referendum. Why not judge the issue according to the stated views of those seeking to sway our opinions?

Yes	No
David Cameron	Michael Gove
Jeremy Corbyn	George Galloway
Nicola Sturgeon	Iain Duncan Smith
Gordon Brown	Nigel Farage
George Osborne	Boris Johnson
Hillary Clinton	Donald Trump
Barack Obama
The CBI
The TUC
Unison
The NFU
Bank of England
Madeleine Albright1
George Shultz2
Head of MI5
Head of MI6
The EU3
The NIESR4
5 former NATO chiefs5
The IMF

¹US Secretary of State under Bill Clinton
²US Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan
³ Well they would, wouldn't they?
⁴National Institute for Economic and Social Research, a highly respected think-tank even when I was an economics student
⁵ Source: Daily Telegraph 09/05/16

The EU Referendum 8 - Whose side are you on, Mr. Smith?

Iain Duncan Smith, former leader of the Conservative and until recently a senior minister in the Government, has spoken against the EU on the grounds that "it favours the haves rather than have-nots".

Now I am really confused. Mr Smith belongs to a party that has always believed that wealth and privilege are good things¹. Nearly all of the social legislation that seeks to transfer wealth from rich to poor - pensions, minimum wage, income tax, death duties, national health service, raising of school leaving age to 16 - was opposed automatically by the Conservatives. Some of these policies are no longer contested. But it is really a bit rich [pun? Ed] to see Mr Smith setting himself on the side of the social reformers. If he genuinely believes in redistribution then will he

• campaign to increase income tax and reduce VAT?
• maintain and strengthen legislation against tax avoidance schemes?
• stop wealthy foreigners buying up property?
• remove the charitable status of "public" schools?
• indeed, seek to abolish private education altogether, often seen as one of the single most important supporting structures in preserving the wealthy as a class?
• advocate intervention when major industries, such as steel, are in difficulties (or will such support only be offered to banks?)

 More important, why is he still a member of the Conservative party?

^{1. With apposite timing, I have been reading Mary Beard's SPQR, a lively history of Rome. There too, particularly in the days of the Republic long before Rome was a global power, it was highly fashionable to hold that only the wealthy should hold political office or be in the Senate, and that their votes should far outweigh the votes of the common people, and indeed for a time only those who could afford to equip themselves were thought worthy to fight in Rome's armies. I don't hold with such views but they certainly have a long life.}

The EU Referendum 7 - Obama puts his oar in

President Obama, currently visiting the UK as part of his final year in office farewell tour, has come out firmly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. He emphasised that the USA would give preference to dealing with the EU with the UK being "at the back of the queue".

Leave campaigners have been scornful of his intervention and Boris Johnson accused him of hypocrisy in that he was advocating policies for us that that he would never apply to his own country.

Boris is wrong on the biggest issue here. The US is itself a federation of states, each of which has chosen to join. From the other side of the Atlantic, it looks as though the EU is slowly moving down the path the Americans took more than two hundred years ago. Obama takes for granted the benefits of such a union and is therefore only voicing the obvious when he relates his own country's policies to ours.  Whether he should have intervened at all is another question. Let us answer it with a simple analogy, one that the Americans themselves have made. I see my friend about to drive off, having drunk more than enough to impair judgement. Do I say something or do I say "No, I must not interfere with his right to injure or kill himself and others?". No-brainer.

Finally, consider that Obama will say whatever he thinks is right for America. In other words, his comments are based on a hard-headed assessment of US interests. So do their interests and ours coincide? In general, yes they do. We want to trade freely with the US and we want US investment here. Our cultures and histories are closely aligned. We are military allies. Would Obama want us to undertake a course of action that would weaken us? Clearly not. When he advises us to remain in the EU he is not trying to make his country better off at our expense - he is trying to do the best for us both.

The EU Referendum 6 - How much more exciting can it get?

The following leaflet dropped through my letterbox the other day, as it doubtless did in many million households in the UK. It's a snappy title, is it not? Leaving aside the fact that, as several Cabinet ministers and many junior ones are opposed to remaining and therefore the leaflet cannot really claim to speak for "the Government", it is the sheer length of the thing that baffles.
 

I mean, it doesn't actually trip off the tongue. They can never make a film out of it, there wouldn't be enough room on the posters. Referendum - this time it's political, perhaps or Cameron - road to redemption.

The contents of the leaflet are a few pages of simple assertions about the importance of the EU to our trade, and a lot of play with the uncertainties of leaving. And, in the section describing the impact on the cost of living, there is a full page picture of a shopping basket, so those of you desperately unsure about what prices and household goods and shopping are, can see for yourselves. I don't think this is good enough. I want a picture showing two men. One, strong, well-dressed, perhaps with some fashionable tinted glasses, should be looking confidently out toward a rising sun over a beautiful rolling landscape. He can be captioned "Mr Yes". The other, scruffy, unshaven, with one dangling earring and half a rollup in the corner of his mouth would be staring unhappily at a dustbin in a dark alley. He would bear the title of "Mr No". This would make everything totally clear and end all possible arguments.

(note to commissioning editors for HMG: I am available at a surprisingly reasonable fee for consultations on Government publications.)

The EU Referendum 5 - A big shout from the quiet man

Much to everyone's surprise, Iain Duncan Smith resigned from his high ranking post in charge of Work and Pensions, citing differences over how to implement welfare cuts following the Budget on Wednesday. Smith, who described himself as the "quiet man" way back when he was struggling to assert himself as leader of the Conservative Party, is conventionally seen as a right-winger and disciple of the blessed Margaret. Yet he has chosen to go out in defence of welfare spending that favours some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Britain. This either

• Marks him out as a genuine "one-nation" Tory, as distinct from the Cameron/Osborne brand of "soak the poor and pander to the rich" politics; or
• is a cunning plan to split the party even further in advance of the EU referendum; or
• both of the above (?)

It seems a little strange that someone opposed to membership of the EU should espouse views that chime in well with the broad strand of welfare/worker support that underpins much of EU social policy. Be that as it may, Smith did not need to resign in order to campaign for the No vote - Cabinet responsibility has already been waived in this regard. But a resignation will shake the confidence of the party in its leaders. Will this therefore strengthen the Nay-sayers? I shall watch developments with great interest.

The EU referendum 4 - Waiting for Rupert

Although he is not British and does not live here, has recently married an American and appears to love little but money, it seems that Mr. R Murdoch, owner of The Times, The Sun, great chunks of our television and as much of the rest of the world's media as he can manage, is now about to intervene in our referendum.  According to The Guardian, (a newspaper owned and managed by British citizens not by a weasel Australian who changed his nationality to comply with US laws about media ownership), Mr. Murdoch will decide which way his organ of popular opinion will go.

The editors of The Sun always used to insist that they did not shape opinion, they voiced what their readers were thinking and wanting. How strange that they are not doing so on this occasion. Perhaps the difficulty in which  they find themselves is that their readers are divided into those who want in, those who want out, those who are trying to make up their minds, those who would are waiting to see what their favourite actors/sportsmen/celebrities say and those who, when asked, will reply "European union mate? Blimey, it's bad enough with the trade unions over here" before ordering another pint and turning back to scrutinise the runners at Chepstow. So, baffled by the lack of steer from their readers, and with the Conservative party split down the middle, the poor editors, unable to make up their own minds, (poor dears, they only produce the most popular newspaper in the country; now we expect them to form reasoned arguments all on their own), are asking Dad.

Dad of course has his own problems. He wants to take control of all of UK television. He needs a friendly face at number 10 to let him in. If he backs the loser he might fail.So this is a high stakes decision for the American gentleman, who now has the chance to change the shape of the British state to suit his own short-term interests.

When I become king no person who is not a British citizen residing and domiciled here for tax purposes will be permitted to own any media outlet above a certain size. I give you my pledge.

The EU referendum 3 - Who is allowed to speak?

Grilled by MPs on a select committee, the Governor of the Bank of England expressed his views that a UK withdrawal from the EU would have worse consequences for the economy than if we remained. He then added that he was not in any way trying to influence anyone's views.

These comments have drawn a storm of protest from those who believe the UK should leave. Mr. Carney has been accused of speaking when he should, as a public official remain silent. Indeed, one MP, Mr. Rees-Mogg, has said his remarks were beneath the dignity of the Bank.

In truth, the poor man (Mr. Carney, not Mr. Rees-Mogg) was going to get it in the neck no matter what he said. Keep schtum and he will be told that he is failing in his duty, as one of the highest-placed financial experts in the country, to advise the Government and the public. Speak a view and be blasted for having partisan ideas. Put up a measured and balance argument that favours neither side and everybody will have a go at him for sitting on the fence and failing to provide leadership.

What he said is really not that objectionable. People making long-term decisions in business need a degree of certainty. Leaving the EU would create an enormous uncertainty about the future of this country. Investors would shy away, the pound would fall in value, financial markets would be shaken. Perhaps the longer-term advantages would outweigh these immediate consequences. I do not believe so, and I suspect Mr. Carney does not; Mr Rees-Mogg probably thinks a heavenly choir of angels will give everyone a bar of gold on the day we close the entrance to the Channel Tunnel and he is entitled to his opinions, but I hope his voice is drowned out.

The EU Referendum 2 - Boris votes for Boris

After an "agonising decision", my MP Boris Johnson has opted for the UK to leave the EU. Did it really hinge on an exhausting examination of the terms of the weekend deal? Or a cynical political calculation which goes like this.

1) Johnson placed himself to replace Cameron if the Tories had failed to win the 2015 general election.
2) Cameron's unexpected victory wrong-footed all of his rivals and his announcement that he would stand down before the next election shut them up pro tem.
3) Cameron's mate George Osborne is the obvious replacement, the man who can undertake to carry on Cameron's policies.
4) So Johnson's hopes of becoming leader of the party and next PM rest on Cameron & Osborne getting a severe setback.
5) Such a setback can only now be if they commit to a Yes result in the referendum (which I assume they will) and the nation votes No.
6) Ergo, Johnson has to be seen as effectively heading the No vote, although given the various parties already committed to that cause, he is unlikely to be the titular leader of any of them.
7) If Cameron wins the referendum then Johnson has not lost much; he will have got a lot of exposure and he can continue to place himself as the alternative to Cameron/Osborne when the time comes. If he loses then Boris can put himself forward as the voice of the people, or something similar.

So I suspect the "agonising" was about whether the above line of reasoning was valid. Because if Boris was really convinced that the UK should not be in the EU he could have made that known a long time ago.

It's a shame that such a charismatic political figure should have opted for a very short-term political judgement on a matter that will be of great importance to the country, and to Europe, for maybe the next thirty years. In my opinion he should have made the long term judgement and for such a scholar of classical history, the lessons from two thousand years of splintered and fractious European nation-states ought to have been learned.

The EU Referendum 1 - Vote Yes for positive reasons

Somewhat to my surprise, Mr. Cameron secured a deal at the EU summit on Friday, gaining the total support of all the member states. Now he has to sell it to the country. There will be a referendum at the end of June, not on the question of whether the deal is acceptable or should be renegotiated, but whether Britain should continue its membership of the EU.

I suppose I will have to examine the arguments as they become clearer in the coming months but for now, let me state my position. I am not interested in whether I am a bit better off or a bit worse off in the EU. I am not interested in whether the "sovereignty" of the UK government is enhanced or diminished by membership. What am I chiefly concerned with is the long term future of this country. I believe that our prosperity and security require a prosperous and secure Europe, especially the countries on the fringes that are currently under the greatest pressure from the economic slowdown and the refugee crisis. In addition there is a real threat of the revival of the Russian empire which may destabilise the Baltic bloc and other bordering countries, and we can expect no particular favours from the other world economic superpowers.

Britain is a vital part of the EU and the EU is a vital contributory factor to our future. It's a no-brainer. I want our government to be at the heart of the European project, standing up for sensible and tolerant policies, opposing extremism and excessive bureaucracy. I don't think a European super-state is feasible right now (but it might be if constructed on genuinely democratic lines with the full consent of everyone) and I am suspicious of "ever-closer union" and glad the UK is exempt from it. Whatever happens in the EU the British voice can be and should be heard loud and clear.

To exit the EU now would force Britain, which does most of its trade with the rest of the EU) to conform to the economic policies made in Brussels but without a say in them. It would gladden those hostile to liberal democracies, be they in the Kremlin, the Middle East or further afield. And it would lead directly to the smashing up of the UK as the Scots would seize their chance for another referendum on independence.

There has never been a world project like the EU, in which many independent nations opt for a single trading bloc (and most for a shared currency), with a tier of political institutions that override their own. It has delivered peace and stability across much of Europe for over 50 years. It is in our interests that it succeeds and the best way we can make sure that it does is to be part of it.

A spot of the balmies

It seems fair to follow up my previous, meteorologically-themed post, with an update. There may be record-breaking blizzards in North America but we enjoyed positively spring-like conditions today in beautiful Ruislip with the temperature reaching an amazing 14c. The unceasing storms and rain of December and the first part of this month have give way to a bit of cloud here and bit of drizzle there, sufficient to keep the back of my garden slightly flooded (and by slight I mean just a bit of standing water that refuses to go away), but nothing whatsoever to worry about. We did get some real snow the other day but it lasted barely the morning. That might be it this year but of course there's a fair way to go yet.

Speaking of balmies, there are barmies on the horizon as the British Government pursues its quest to renegotiate the terms under which the UK is a member of the EU and we have the fascinating prospect of the Conservative party about to rip itself apart. Several leading members of the Government have declared themselves against it, no matter what Mr. Cameron may achieve in his exhausting and seemingly endless jaunts around Europe trying to drum up support. The latest news is that he might go for a referendum in the early summer, thus irritating the Scottish Nationalists because it will overshadow elections there. But if he delays till the autumn then the split in his party will be revealed in full at the party conference because no elections can ever be held between mid-June and the end of September.

The only sensible referendum would be one where voters could choose between a range of policies but we won't get that. Arguably only people who actually know what the EU is and have some idea about how it works, what it costs and how it is likely to be changed in future should be permitted to vote but we won't get that either. (This is not like voting for an MP, who you know you can chuck out in five years if you have to).  It will be a yes/no and much legal time will be spent on the precise wording. If Mr. Cameron has his way it will read
"Do you agree with the Government's very sensible terms that will guarantee a prosperous future for all within the EU?";
and if his critics win out it will read
"Do you agree that Britain faces utter ruin if it remains in the EU any longer no matter what those cunning foreigners might pretend to concede to us?".

In any case nobody will have the slightest idea whether we will be better off in or out because nobody can predict the future so the whole exercise is daft. I suppose I will have to continue commenting on it because the decision matters, not least because a No vote will inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK because, if one should occur, then sooner or later Scotland will have a second independence referendum, on the grounds that a majority of them wish to remain the EU so why the hell should they follow England out.

It is a cruel irony that the leader of what used to be the "Conservative and Unionist" party should be so keen to jeopardise the Union and his attempts to prevent it will of great interest.