Blogs

 

COVID-19 Restrictions: Fascist Policies Using Socialist Logic

November 23, 2021 Andrew Elliott Blogs

There are four stages to socialist logic:

  1. It works
  2. It works better if everybody does it
  3. It only works if everybody does it
  4. It only works if everybody does it and it is the only thing that will work. Therefore everyone against it is your enemy.

You will have seen this logic many times before. It was first used with socialism itself. Socialism was sold as being better than capitalism in every way. People simply needed to embrace it and their lives would improve.

It was supposed to increase production and quality of life for everyone who participated. Then, when small communes were clearly a failure, suddenly it would work better if everyone did it. Then, when people weren’t interested, everybody HAD to do it.

80% socialist?  It’ll never work (something we actually both agree on!).

Finally, because people were still not buying it, it was sold as the only way. Capitalism is in crisis and will collapse. Humanity is in danger. Socialism is the only way and everyone who isn’t a socialist is an absolute danger to society.

It’s the same with the NHS. We couldn’t possibly have an NHS just for those who cannot afford healthcare (a very small number). It has to exist for everyone or it will never work, and it’s the only system that could possibly work.

Education? Private schools are dangerous, according to these fanatics. The historical examples are endless.

Let’s compare this logic with what we’re being told today.

Masks don’t protect you. They only protect others. Therefore, every single person must wear them. It’s the only thing that will work and there’s no other option. Sound familiar?

Everyone must lock down. Not just the vulnerable.

Vaccines will only work if the entire population is vaccinated. There is no other way to fight this disease. The unvaccinated are a serious threat.

It’s clear that this is all socialist logic. Which is why I think, in my opinion inaccurately, people are describing the current restrictions as socialist. But let’s take a look at fascism, for a moment.

What is fascism?

According to Mussolini, it’s a merger between corporations and the state.

Fascism is a far right ideology, so what’s “right wing”? Right wing policies are all about control and order (as opposed to left wing, which is all about ownership). Right wing policies include regulation and licencing. When you reach the far right, these policies lead to cartels.

So now let us look at some of the current restrictions, putting aside for a moment the logic used to sell them.

Lockdowns are a form of severe regulation. They even came through in the form of regulations (this isn’t just a description I’m using). Mask wearing was one of these regulations.

Vaccines are paid for by the state and produced by selected big pharmaceutical corporations who have been given immunity from prosecution. They are the nearest thing to a cartel that we currently have.

Proof of vaccination and negative test results are both forms of licence.  Papers please?

This is why I think it is incorrect to describe the current restrictions as socialist. They all fall under the definitions of fascism in every way.

Why are the left so keen on them, though? I hear you ask.

Once you understand the left, it all makes sense. The left just want power over you. It’s not about providing for the poor or maximising happiness for everyone. It’s simply power. Because of this, the only question they ever ask themselves is “What do I have to do or say to get you to do what I want?”

This isn’t something new, either. The left have been calling for more regulation for years. Ed Milliband, voted in as the Labour Party leader by the far left unions made it his mission to increase regulation on the energy sector. Labour Party manifestos, including under lifelong self identifying socialist Jeremy Corbyn, have been full of regulation increases for decades.

Why do they do this?

The left know that the easiest way to increase the size of the state is through fascism. They see fascism as a stepping stone to socialism, and they’re not wrong. It’s far easier to nationalise industries when fewer businesses exist and everyone is an obedient statist drone.

They also know that with increased regulation, standards will fall and industries will suffer. Socialism is a far easier sell when things aren’t working. Take railways as an example. Surveys suggest that the general public is in favour of nationalising them now that regulation and an incompetent National Rail is killing them.

A sad irony to all this is that those who have been shouting “Fascism!” at almost everything for the past few years cannot see it when it’s right in front of them.

I see different groups of people, here.

  1. There are those on the left who know exactly what they’re doing. They know fascism is a stepping stone.
  2. There are those on the left who, for whatever reason, have been taken in by all of it. Let us not forget that, until recently, these people would have been the first to point out, correctly in my view, the dangers of the big pharmaceutical companies. One thing is for sure – fascism has never been good for your health.
  3. There are those on the right who fall for the socialist rhetoric and fail to identify the current problems we face as fascism.  While thinking they look nuanced and sophisticated, they are merely useful idiots for the left.

The first group need to be shown for what they are.  The rest need to be shown the error of their ways.

The original definition of the word “woke” was intended to mean having woken up to what is happening. Well, people need to wake up to fascism. And fast. Because, while socialism may be the goal, it will never happen. Fascism will destroy us before then.

Stopping all this is both easy, and hard. What needs to be done is peaceful non-compliance:

  1. Don’t wear a mask
  2. Refuse to socially distance
  3. Ignore lockdowns
  4. Ignore requests from your place of work to provide your vaccine status

We have a right to see our friends, hug our families and for people to see the expressions on our faces. We have a right to breathe easily. We need to stand up for these rights more than ever before.

Some of these aren’t difficult, some will take courage. Unfortunately, we need more and more people to do it. They’ll never manage to enforce all the ridiculous restrictions if enough people ignore them. The British public can become ungovernable.

It’ll only work if we all do it. Hang on, have I heard that somewhere before…

Don’t worry. Only doomed ideologies need everyone to follow. Historically, once 10% of people try to influence the rest on a given topic, behaviours dramatically change. And we don’t need many to make it impossible for the state to enforce their tyranny.

If you liked this post and want to hear more, please check out this recent podcast where I first speak about these ideas, in a long form conversation with my brother: What do we know, so far?

 

Hear Me Out… Testosterone Passports

May 10, 2021 Andrew Elliott Blogs

Yes yes, I know. I’ve been highlighting the folly of Covid Passports for months. I’ve said that they’re essentially implementing a caste system alongside a mobile tracking app and that this is possibly the worst loss of freedom in the west for hundreds of years. I’ve compared them to the “Papers Please” culture of East Germany and asked people to consider whether they’d be so enthusiastic about them if they were for, say, HIV.

But, if the battle has been lost, and I’m not saying it has (yet), but if it has, then maybe there’s a way to use this technology for good. I give you: The Testosterone Passport

I can hear you already: “Andrew, what are you thinking?”

So, here’s the rationale. Testosterone is an essential hormone, for men and women. Now, I’m only advocating testosterone passports for men. Aside from my obvious ‘lived experience’, I’m genuinely interested in the data around this and I have none for levels of estrogen (or other female hormones) in women. Although, I’m sure we can work something out.

Testosterone is most commonly linked with things like muscle mass, sex drive etc.. But there’s evidence to suggest it’s also linked with feelings of self worth, personal responsibility, determination, faster injury recovery and a whole host of other positive benefits. People with higher testosterone levels also tend to be on the more libertarian end of the spectrum. Think about it. Where are you most likely to see low test soy boys? At your local NRA meeting or a commie get together?

Let us not forget when male journalists at Marx loving Buzzfeed had their testosterone levels checked. Every single one was below average and 75% of them were dangerously low (well outside the normal range). I think it’s clear: Testosterone is objectively a good thing in men.

But what happens when men dont have an adequate supply of this life saving hormone?

Let’s take boundaries, as an example. Low T left wing men aren’t good with them. At all. Is it any wonder the guys shouting about open borders and free movement are the ones who don’t understand any other type of boundary, personal or otherwise? Whether it’s Occupy London or Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, these guys always end up committing sexual assault. It’s no coincidence. And in general how many left wing activists are accused of rape? Far more than the average.

Testosterone has been given a bad rap in recent years, but it’s far from deserved. We need to turn this around and, at the same time, protect fine people from soy infused ne’er-do-wells.

How would it work? Well, we’re already a test culture. Test as in test, not test as in testosterone (more’s the pity). People regularly test themselves for SARS-COV-2, right now. We just need them to switch to testing for something far more dangerous: low testosterone. Once tested, your T status will automatically be updated on your NHS Test and Trace app (we don’t even need to change the name). You will then be tracked and, if your levels are too low, shunned & avoided.

Of course testosterone levels vary in individuals, but it’s not like there are no options for the soy inflicted. There are plenty of natural testosterone boosters you can take, as well as estrogen suppressors (to give you more bang per buck from your T). If these aren’t enough, you could try pro-hormones, which are basically mini steroids that give you a small boost of testosterone in the form of a tablet. They’re fine, but they do go through your liver, so you may want to opt for injections, which are a lot safer. Doctors already give older men testosterone shots. Why not Marxists? Of course, if you’re already ‘roided up to the eyeballs, you have nothing to worry about.

“What about the trans community?” I hear you ask.

Well, trans men already take a LOT of testosterone, so they’re probably not an issue at all. I can guarantee that 95% of them would beat all buzzfeed male journos in an arm wrestle, at the very least. The only group of concern would be trans women. Now, biology is the most important thing of course, but it would be ridiculous to expect all trans women to maintain male levels of testosterone. We’re not bigots. The criteria for needing these tests is so obviously simple: male genitalia

Testicles? Test and trace.

 

 

Virtue Broadcasting – When Virtue Signalling Just Isn’t Enough

August 12, 2020 Andrew Elliott Blogs

Did you know that the term Virtue Signalling is only 5 years old?

It seems like it’s been around forever, doesn’t it? It was actually created in a Spectator article by James Bartholomew on April 18th, 2015. It’s been flourishing ever since.

For the unaware, Virtue Signalling is a way of appearing noble & principled without actually doing anything. Writing “hates the Daily Mail” in a Twitter bio is a good example. You haven’t done anything good, by doing that. You haven’t helped feed the homeless or built a well in an African Village. You’re just written four words. Yet I’m expected to think you’re somehow a better person for it.

That’s virtue signalling. Once you know it exists, you’ll begin to notice it. Its common, precisely because it requires so little effort.

Now, adding words to your twitter bio is one thing, but what if the ‘signal’ is a lot more prominent? Signalling implies a certain subtlety about it. What if you’re making a big thing about doing nothing? I think we need a new term for that.

I present to you “Virtue Broadcasting”.

You’ll have seen virtue broadcasting, already. Standing outside your house at 8pm on a Thursday banging your pots and pans for the NHS? That’s virtue broadcasting. Shouting at people who aren’t wearing masks? The same.

Virtue signalling just doesn’t seem enough for some people. We need a new term. I’m not entirely sure whether Broadcasting is the right word, and I’m happy to use another. But, for now, it’ll do.

 

Photo by Nicolas J Leclercq on Unsplash

If we’re going to argue about the tyranny of the majority, I will win

February 5, 2020 Andrew Elliott Blogs

So, we’ve finally left the EU. But this hasn’t stopped a few ardent remainers from trotting out some of the arguments they’ve been making for the past three and a half years.

The one that fascinates me most is the one that goes something like “x voted to remain”. You’ve seen the claims. “Scotland voted remain” or “London voted Remain”. Sometimes they’re grouped together, for impact, like this tweet from a disgraced member of the corporate press:

This always seems to me to be a strange argument, but one I’m actually happy to back (although they won’t like the support I’m giving it). It’s one of those points that you know they just haven’t thought about enough. They cannot have thought it through, or taken it to the next stage (never mind its logical conclusion).

Let’s do that for them.

Their point must, for they wouldn’t have said it otherwise, be that this is somehow important. That x (let’s use Scotland) voted to remain. That the people of Scotland (a subsection of the broader referendum area) are being overruled. It’s worth pointing out at this stage that this was a UK referendum. There were no constituencies, no countries, no cities, just one big vote, winner takes all. This wasn’t a first past the post vote for a number of seats, like in a General Election. Any area that remainers are speaking of is arbitrary (unless it’s the whole of the UK). So why are they doing it?

Is it that it’s bad for a larger population to govern a smaller one? To somehow dictate terms to people who don’t want decisions imposed on them? Because I say let’s take this further. You talk about Scotland. Not everyone in Scotland voted to remain. Many voted to leave. What about them? If it’s not ok for the larger part of the UK to dominate a smaller part, why is it ok for the larger part of Scotland to do the very same thing?

I love the idea that a larger group should not impose its will on a smaller group, which is exactly what they don’t realise they’re saying.

If Scotland shouldn’t have to listen to the rest of the UK, why should Glasgow have to listen to the rest of Scotland? Why should a village with a Glasgow postcode listen to the rest of Glasgow? Why should households in that postcode listen to the rest of them? In fact, why should any individual listen to any majority? Why should anyone have power over another, simply because they’re larger in number?

This is the logical conclusion of their argument.

It also helps us to point out that the larger the democratic area, the greater the number of people who will be disappointed. So why do they use it to argue for membership of an organisation that has the ability to impose its will on multiple countries every time a new law or regulation is passed? Indeed, if your argument is against the tyranny of the majority, you should logically be calling for the smallest possible majority to prevent any unnecessary tyranny whatsoever. Which leads you to the democracy of one: The individual.

This is why I’m all for their argument. Why should people tell you how to live your life because they outnumber you? Why should any group impose their morals on a group of lesser members? Why should a number of people have power, authority and control over any smaller number?

Let’s not play the democracy game. It’s easy to talk like Brendan O’Neill and say that we should always rely on the wisdom of crowds, that we should trust in the democratic will of the people and that we should put our faith in the collective decision making of the entire population. Collective decision making gave us Theresa May and over any reasonable length of time you, personally, will be overruled by the majority for no good reason.

Instead, let’s play them at their own game and play to win. Yes. You’re quite right. The rest of Britain shouldn’t impose its will on Scotland and nobody else should impose their will on me.

 

Photo by Adam Wilson on Unsplash

Facebook wants regulation because it wants to strangle new ideas

March 31, 2019 Nic Elliott Blogs

There are many motivations for starting a company, but most of them involve having an idea.

It might not be an original one, but that idea is what fuels the company.

That idea is a way of providing a service or a product that will be successful and have demand.

You might have an idea that you know will only make a quick buck. You might have a game changing product that ultimately will influence an entire sector or culture.

You might just think you can do something everyone else is doing, just cheaper, or better.

But while you’re doing it, while your setting up the company and as you start to trade and continue to grow, you aren’t looking for the hardest and most expensive way of doing it.

You maintain your idea, but in the most efficient and value intensive way.

If it costs more than you can sell it for, then you might as well shut up shop, unless you can see a way to reduce those costs through scale, investment and technology.

What you don’t do, is embrace or encourage burdens on your business.

Yet that’s what regulation is.

Regulations are what a start up business has to find a way to fund. They are a direct cost to the business.

You might have raw materials, labour cost and the cost of manufacturing, shipping, marketing etc.

But you also have the regulatory cost. The cost of compliance.

And this is where regulation favours the large business, with its economies of scale and deeper pockets than the plucky start up.

It’s why you’ll never see a small business ask the government to regulate them.

It’s why the founder of Facebook just asked for the government to regulate it.

Look at us, we’re on your side, we are actually asking for rules to play by. We can’t possibly be evil.

Yet if Facebook wanted to protect its users, it could. If it wanted to invest in technology to filter content, it could pump billions of dollars into it.

The plucky little start up social media company can’t afford to do that.

And that’s why Facebook wants it.

They get to “work with governments” and governments get to say they “worked with industry” to set regulation and “protect” us. From whom, who knows.

But the sad irony, the counter intuitive fact of the matter, is that if government regulates Facebook (or rather the entire social media industry) then it has unwittingly done Facebook’s job for it.

It’s put a massive extra cost on being a social media platform, and thus instantly made it billions of dollars more difficult to become one.

Who do we want to challenge the Facebooks of this world? Only other global business leviathans with the means to navigate and pay the costs generated by regulation?

Or do we want real competition.  From new businesses of any size. From those that want to change and pivot quickly.

Facebook just asked to be regulated. Governments will now clamour to do so, when all they are doing is helping sustain and augment a monopoly.

Yet we should want those with new ideas to be able to disrupt.

To challenge.

To innovate.

The best way of coming up with something better than Facebook is to unleash the potential of those new ideas.

Free from constraints.  Free from burdensome regulation that only the large incumbents will push for in order to create barriers for those to challenge them.

Of course Mark Zuckerberg wants new regulation.

The problem is that no one else asks why.

Photo by William Iven on Unsplash

Brexit isn’t threatening our constitution, Theresa May is.

March 23, 2019 Nic Elliott Blogs

It’s easy to say we are going through a constitutional crisis.

The assessment is a lazy one.

But this issue is bigger than Brexit (although that was the trigger) and dare I say it, it’s bigger even than the overturning of the clear democratic mandate of the referendum.

In most people’s eyes Theresa May, or indeed any Prime Minister that were to replace her, has the responsibility to implement the result given.

But there is something, I think, even more sinister happening that threatens our entire system of government, and that’s the overthrow of the executive in favour of the legislature.

In our system, as distinct from the US and others, the executive is appointed from members of the legislature. In particular, the vast majority are members of parliament, rather than members of the house of lords.

So they are each elected by their constituents, part of a political party, and on the winning side before they are then chosen by the Prime Minister to serve in the government.

But what happens if parliament “takes back control”. Well this is what media pundits like to tell you, although I’m not sure in its history it ever actually had the control it is purported to be taking back.

But the point is a serious one and it’s also important to understand who is enabling it.

One Theresa May.

Yes, we have a Speaker who doesn’t respect the office he holds, turning it into a specifically political and therefore ultimately party-political position.  The is dangerous in and of itself.

But it’s May who is continually letting MPs now call the shots.  MPs who lost. MPs who haven’t been chosen to form a government. MPs that’s function is to scrutinize law, not rule.

The Bill has been defeated. That should be it.

She could withdraw it. She could end this parliamentary sitting and reset proceedings.

But instead she enables potential policy outcomes that she says she is against while attempting to prevent the one outcome that is still government policy (just leaving).

In my eyes this now transcends Brexit.

This is about process. And process is important.

Not least of which because we need to hold our elected officials to account, but also because big constitutional change surely needs democratic support. Say… a referendum on what organisations and structures govern us and whether we have sovereignty?

This parliament with the support of Bercow and May, egged on by Anti-Democrats on all sides, is neutering the executive, but without a credible or warranted alternative.

So while Brexit is the catalyst, or at least the trigger of this spasm of protest and sudden flexing of muscles by MPs who five minutes ago were happy to be ruled from Brussels, to me it doesn’t matter that it’s about leaving the EU.

To me, in any circumstance where the executive feels it is being usurped, it should defend itself, and our very system of government, with its checks and balances and separation of powers.

I may not agree with the amount of power our government holds in general, but exchanging one set of useless despots for another is not my idea of liberal reform.

The larger mistake that Theresa May is making, and this is obviously saying something, is letting MPs over rule not only the referendum result, but the government’s control of negotiations with the EU when they have no authority to do so.

And the fact that she blames MPs now publicly for the mess she is in, just shows how delusional she has become and how she’s forgotten what it truly means to hold the office of Prime Minister and defend our constitution.

Photo by Deniz Fuchidzhiev on Unsplash

People’s something – where have I heard that before?

February 17, 2019 Nic Elliott Blogs

Albania. Bulgaria. Czechoslovakia. Hungary. Poland. Romania. Yugoslavia.

What do they have in common?

How about Ethiopia?

Add in China and North Korea.

All have been or currently are countries that started their name with “People’s”.

Most of them liked to add “Republic” after that and some added “Democratic”.  All gives a certain legitimacy doesn’t it.

If we say it, declare it, name it, then it must be so.

Of course most people recognise that it is farce.

It is the mark of the authoritarian regime.

Clothe yourself in talk of the people and indeed in the people having a vote and surely everyone will buy into that?

No, they don’t.

For starters, let’s observe how many of those countries I’ve listed still have “People’s” in their title. Very few.

But yet with absolutely no irony – with dead straight faces in fact – was the “People’s Vote” campaign launched.

True democrats (God isn’t it depressing when you have to put “true” or “real”, “genuine” or “proper” in front of a term because it’s been distorted to mean the opposite?) have easily recognised and can explain away the call for a second referendum.

Yet as we approach Brexit Day, with only weeks to go, the mask seems to have slipped in the People’s Vote campaign.

Sure we can easily label it the Loser’s Vote, the Politician’s Vote, an affront to democracy etc. But actually none of those things need saying any more.

Whereas for over 2 years the opponents of leaving the European Union have couched their language in terms of “having a final say”, “making sure” and other such nonsense – all the while of course repeating that they “respect the outcome of the referendum” – they now have lost that campaign message discipline.

They now just say it like it is. Dammit we need to stop Brexit.

We were all too stupid the first time. We need to Remain.

Guardian journalists were predictably first.

Jonathan Freedland (what an ironic surname) says now is the time to just campaign for remain. No ifs or buts.

Polly Toynbee has gone one better by claiming that now some old people have died, their votes must be discarded.

Heaven forbid that the oldest in society might have the most experience and better judgement than those just starting out.

Of course democrats or generally sensible people don’t campaign for the votes of younger adults to be halved or discounted. They believe in the basic principles of one person one vote.

I thought we could all agree on that. But then the EU referendum occurred and the true colours of the opposition were shown.

Legal challenges, mud thrown, campaigns for overturning democratic decisions.

But we shouldn’t be surprised should we?

It’s a “People’s” Vote after all.

Photo by Dirk Spijkers on Unsplash

We don’t need a general election, but MPs do need to resign

January 14, 2019 Nic Elliott Blogs

In his recent Spectator piece, Stephen Daisley outlines the political conundrum of Brexit well: the voters want Brexit, the executive wants Brexit, but Parliament does not want Brexit.

Now taking face value that the executive does actually want Brexit (Theresa May certainly doesn’t), Daisley explains that with the problem being the make up of the house of commons, that we need a general election to get a new batch of MPs.

But a general election is much like a second referendum, in that it lets MPs off the hook.

Even when given a clear decision on what to do, MPs (and Ministers, and Prime Ministers) can dither, prevaricate, delay and obfuscate until there comes such a time when they say “sorry, this is too difficult, back to you”.

Of course, what this means is that they didn’t like the decision that was handed to them, and they want a new one. Is this how we should let them behave?

MPs have a problem with Leaving. They wouldn’t be calling for a second referendum or a general election had the country voted majority Remain. They like Remaining.

But it’s also more than that. It’s about the fact that these MPs who call for a second referendum are putting their politics first, before democracy.

Yes, we have witnessed a clash of two kinds of democracy – Direct in the form of the referendum, and Representative in the form of our MPs – but after voting for the referendum bill itself, and again in triggering Article 50 of the Treaties, they are choosing to dump the decision made by the people in favour of their own personal views.

There is a dilemma here for MPs – there is no doubt about that. They are elected by their constituents to make decisions, to make law, to scrutinise government, to be in government.

But they are revealing, quite clearly, where they rank the decision made by the majority of the country compared to their own views as elected representatives.

Remain first, democracy second.

Of course, what they are hoping for, by dragging out this process for so long, is to make Parliament and Government look as dysfunctional as possible. They want to be able to say “See, this is too complicated, we need you to have your say again – look how we are mucking this up”.

This may have the effect they desire, with voters becoming ever more frustrated with their politicians, but they are missing the point. Brexit was a vote against the establishment, and the status quo. By making the establishment seem incompetent (revealing that it is?) that sense of disenfranchisement only strengthens.

Populist sentiment will only increase. If Leave isn’t delivered in any kind of meaningful way (like signing a Withdrawal Agreement that is more Remain than Remain) that sentiment will rise again.

Undo the referendum result entirely and stop Brexit and things could get nasty.

If MPs don’t want to implement the decision given to them by a national referendum, then they should resign as MPs.

They should make room for someone in their constituency who is willing to represent that decision and implement it.

There is another way of changing the make up of the House of Commons, and it’s not a general election, it’s a by election. In this case, potentially hundreds of by elections.

The problem, as identified by Daisley, is indeed the logjam of parliament. But a general election just means the same candidates trying to keep their jobs and to convince you of their views, not the other way around.

These MPs say more democracy is the answer, but if they had any sense of democracy whatsoever, they would be resigning in their droves, to make way for representatives that would indeed represent the voters, and who had the guts to implement what they have already decided.

Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

Remain won, so why are we leaving?

January 12, 2019 Nic Elliott Blogs

To say this period of politics in the UK is interesting is an understatement.

Remain supporting politicians want us to stay in the EU. That much is clear.

They are also using every parliamentary trick in the book (including relying on their mate Mr Speaker) to effect their cause.

But I often think about what life would have been like in an alternative version of history. One where Leave didn’t win.

The day the result is announced, Prime Minister David Cameron resigns stating that even though he said he would stay on as leader if Remain won and enact the will of the people, he had changed his mind.

Sajid Javid becomes the leader of the Conservative Party and new UK Prime Minister, after Michael Gove declares his support for Theresa May early in the contest, only to stab her in the back later by splitting the vote in the next round.

Javid is a remain voting leaver, so remainers like him, but leavers do too for only supporting remain reluctantly.

In forming a cabinet he decides to unite the country by splitting his cabinet down the middle with 50/50 remain and leave supporters.

Leading remain supporter George Osborne is put in charge of a newly created department called “The Department For Reforming the European Union”.

Other prominent remainers are put in charge of Foreign Affairs and another new department for Global Trade.

Leading leave supporters are put in the treasury, home office, transport, health and education. (Michael Gove comes back as Chief Secretary to the Treasury after 6 months of loyal back benching).

In a surprise move, Javid delivers a letter personally to the EU Commission President triggering Article 50 and asking George Osborne to negotiate the deal that David Cameron always should have, for a new reformed relationship fit for the UK.

Javid makes a public statement on the steps of Number 10 explaining that the referendum result was so close that he couldn’t possibly ignore the 48% of leave voters and that therefore he was aiming for a specific half in/half out relationship with the EU so we could finally move on as a country.

Remain MPs are furious. Gina Miller starts legal proceedings.

The Liberal Democrats demand a second referendum even though they won the first one. They argue that a decision this big can’t be made by MPs or the government.

The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn produce 18 different policies on how the relationship with the EU should look.

While George Osborne is negotiating the softest possible deal with Michel Barnier, PM Javid announces immediate no deal preparations (with a full 20 months left to go of the article 50 process) and Dominic Raab the Chancellor of the Exchequer announces sweeping cuts to corporation and personal tax rates. In his conference speech Raab compares the UK to Hong Kong.

Steve Baker the Global Trade Secretary finds and exploits a loophole in EU law that effectively nullifies the Common External Tariff and announces an immediate unilateral reduction of all trade tariffs to zero. Countries queue up to sell us their cheap goods and envoys are sent around the world promoting the UK service industry.

The EU are furious and immediately launch a judicial review by the ECJ on the UKs actions, although this will take at least a year to resolve, during which time food and clothing prices in the UK plummet.

Along with the Raab tax cuts, the poorest in society end up proportionately being helped the most by having more cash in their pockets.

David Davis, newly appointed Minister of Deregulation, slashes red tape by eliminating 73 different quangos over a period of 6 months.

The subsequent 6 months see the largest expansion of new businesses the UK has ever seen and employment among under 45s hits 92%.

George Osborne resigns from the government along with the Foreign Secretary Theresa May a week later. In her resigning speech in the commons May sites the clear referendum result and that remain should mean remain.

The new Reforming the EU Secretary Jeremy Hunt negotiates a Free Trade Agreement with the EU and a unique Associate Membership that recognises the UKs supreme sovereignty as well as a mutual recognition of standards and regulations.

This withdrawal agreement is put to parliament but as Jeremy Corbyn can see full freedom from the EU in his sights, he announces he won’t support the agreement. In public he gives a speech stating that as a remain voter he has a duty to protect the UKs status in the EU and that the withdrawal agreement is Leave in all but name.

There isn’t a majority for the withdrawal agreement and the bill fails in the house of commons because Jacob Rees Mogg, who refused a cabinet position in order to lead the ERG leads a last minute group of Conservative MPs against it.

The UK leaves the EU, the Euro drops in value and Trump announces a trade deal with the UK that is “great, just great, huge”.

The day after, Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve join the Liberal Democrats.

Ok so that was both self indulgent and a lot of fun to write. But is it any crazier a course of events than has actually happened? I don’t think so. Yet here we are.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

200 MPs cheered a lame duck Prime Minister, and nothing changed

December 13, 2018 Nic Elliott Blogs

Why did they cheer?

Last night 200 MPs got to their feet to make some noise. But in their frenzy they forgot something.

They are the minority.

Those 200 MPs are the only ones out of a parliament of 650 that support the prime minister.

That they have a majority of their own party is irrelevant.

And this is the state of politics post 2015. Leaders that nobody really wants, that certainly don’t represent the collective views of the electorate.

Last night John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, thought nobody would notice when he pointed out how many of her own MPs didn’t have confidence in Theresa May as leader of her party.

How convenient that he’s forgotten that his own leader ignored a similar vote that he overwhelmingly lost.

But this is business as usual in the UK Parliament. If you don’t like the outcome of a vote then you try to ignore it.

Often you pretend that nothing actually happened or that somehow you are strengthened by the loss.

Are these days numbered? Will we actually get back to some semblance of normality, any time soon?

With no date set for a vote on the withdrawal agreement and the EU showing no sign of caving on the NI protocol it feels to me like Theresa May could end up being the person who leads us out of the EU with no deal. And that Jeremy Corbyn could just continue to vacillate without getting anything he really wants.

Will we be in exactly the same position in 12 months time? Article 50 extended or cancelled, Theresa May still “negotiating” with both her backbench MPs and the EU and Jeremy Corbyn still demanding but not getting a general election.

The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition seem to have one skill in common. Doing everything they can to hang on to their current positions regardless of whether their MPs or the country want them to.

I don’t see that position changing any time soon.

Photo by Jordhan Madec on Unsplash