Brexit, Mexit and Nexit

Last week, I was up and down to London more times than a pogo-stick warrior on a sugar high. I went from a debate about should we abolish our monarchy (‘Mexit’), to whether we should back or bin net zero (‘Nexit’), and a reassessment of all things Brexit (‘Brexit’) almost ten years after the Glorious Revolution / Referendum. The following highlights aren’t what I’d anticipated I’d blog about. Just goes to show that a week of politics makes strange unintended consequences (I cannot so much mix as mash my clichés).

Mexit
Let’s start with the monarchy that “This house would abolish”. I’m a huge fan of the monarchy and am never (no, never) going to change my mind about wanting to retain and nurture it. But one of the speakers was Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, the leading anti-monarchy pressure group in the UK. I’ve never (no, never) heard him speak or read anything he’s written, so I was looking forward to some zinger thoughts that would challenge my steadfast views and make me either work hard for a counter-argument or force me to tweak some detail of my position.

He got off to a bad start. A very bad start. He opened and opined that he’d never heard a good reason to retain the monarchy. What never? No, never. Who’d have thought. Even I admit there are some advantages to an elected head of state for the UK. Almost the next thing Stewart claimed had me one sharp intake of breath short of a heckle – the monarch doesn’t work very hard. This from a bloke who stands behind a police cordon, wearing a yellow T-shirt and shouting obscenities at an old man whose raison d’être is to serve, not to be served.

As The Times’ review of Stewart’s self-promoting book noted: “He misses no opportunity to abuse the occupants of the throne and their relatives. In the process, he buries his few good arguments with many terrible ones”. Well done for finding some good arguments of Stewart’s. I drew a blank.

Just as Stewart failed to get out of the starting blocks during the debate, the final speaker (William), who favoured the retention of the monarchy, cruised over the hurdles (which, as you gather, weren’t very high) and crossed the finish-line unchallenged. It’s not just that he parried and skewered Stewart’s arguments well; his winning thrust was to explain the monarchy in its historical and constitutional context, which led to the deflation of Stewart’s claims that an elected head of state was more democratic.

"Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself,” said William. “President Blair, anyone?” which drew nervous laughter all round.

What chimed with me more than anything was Willian’s recollection of the massacre in Norway in 2011, when a lone terrorist exploded a car in Oslo and pursued a mass shooting at a youth summer camp on Utøya Island. He murdered 77 people. The attacks were an extension of the perp’s extreme anti-Muslim views. William explained that Norway’s then 74-year-old King Harald V – a cousin of our own Charles III and who had reigned for about 20 years – was a calming influence and brought the country together. William claimed that the longevity of Harald’s reign and the constitutional impartiality of the long-term monarchy were necessary factors in the success of his rhetoric.

This reminded me of the role Queen Elizabeth II played after the traumatic Grenfell Tower fire on 14th June, 2017. The elected Labour London Mayor was heckled. The elected Tory (kinda) Prime Minister snuck in and out on a ‘private’ visit without meeting with residents or community volunteers. The elected communist leader of the Opposition was harshly criticised for engaging in political point-scoring. (What, Corbyn? Yes, Corbyn.)

Our unelected Monarch visited a Grenfell relief centre on 16th June, having sent a message of condolence the previous day. She was greeted warmly and enthusiastically. She spoke to survivors, relatives of those who died, volunteers and emergency services workers. The locals had every right to be angry with anyone who represented ‘The Establishment’, especially those who ‘live in splendour, isolated from the harsh realities others have to face’. And yet, the Queen was obviously loved and respected by those who might justifiably have been angry and impatient with her.

One gentleman who lost his father in the fire said, “She showed up, you know. She listened to us, gave us respect. It gave dignity to my father and the 72 people who died in Grenfell”.

The reason for her popularity, I maintain, is two-fold. Not elected but succeeded, the Queen had been in post since she was a young woman: a lifetime of duty and service from which she could have, like her Uncle Edward, walked away. Or she could enjoy the easy, fun, privileged bits and left learning alone, ribbons uncut, hands unshaken. Compare and contrast with elected heads of state, like Trump, Connolly (Ireland), and Halla (Iceland). Trump needs no introduction, Connolly is a self-declared socialist, and Halla trumpeted her opposition to Iceland’s participation in arms purchases for Ukraine. (And she only received 34% of the popular vote. More people voted against her than for her.) Just three examples of elected, divisive, here-today-gone-tomorrow heads of state.

Britain, on the other hand, has the unelected, 1,000-year-old, apolitical, unifying, continuously-updating-itself monarchy. King Charles III has been training all his life for his call to serve as monarch, not to be served. Queen Elizabeth II served all her adult life. This longevity of duty and service, continuity, consistency, experience and unique constitution are what Brits (and our international friends) love. And it works. Think the Queen Mum during the war, the Queen at Grenfell, the Queen during Covid, the King in America. When the Queen did consciously choose not to serve her people, after Diana died, to focus instead on her family, she was pilloried. Her people needed and wanted her. The monarchy. Not Blair. Never Blair.

If Stewart wants to live in a Republic, there’s plenty of foreign lands for him to choose from. Or does he stay here because his aim is not to better the country by updating it, but to better himself by destroying it?

Brexit
Similarly, during the Brexit event the day after the monarchy debate, the facts and reasons behind the unique British constitution and our tradition of ‘common law’ justified the need to Brexit and to stay Brexited. Our common law is empirical and by precedent, which doesn’t sit well with the European tradition of making it up as you go along and keeping your fingers crossed. (Did you know that the UK has escaped over 16,000 new EU laws since Brexit?) The superior economic performance of UK Plc since Brexit was also a compelling argument – in brief, Project Fear was a crock. The anti-Brexit protest outside the venue – there were only four fascists attempting to drown out those who hold views opposed to theirs – demonstrated the anti-democratic mindset of EU-ers.

The Guardian’s John Crace also convinced me that Brexit was the right move. Why? Because he described the Brexit conference attendees as “weirdos … misfits … losers”. That would include Labour grandees Baron Maurice Glasman and Graham Stringer MP. Crace failed to correct or even mention the economic data, probably because he knew he couldn’t spin it his way. He described a former Welsh Tory minister (David Jones) as “forgettable even round his own breakfast table”, despite Jones receiving rapturous applause with “one of the best Brexit speeches ever” as Baroness Claire Fox declared. As for the deep, insightful, technical arguments about the British constitution and common law, some made by Jones, Crace had nothing to say. If his was the case against Brexit … well, there is no case.

I might as well mention my exchange on LinkedIn a couple of days later. A known remoaner posted that the British economy wasn’t doing too bad compared to the EU states so we should go easy on Reeves. He followed that with how Brexit had ruined the economy, inferring that proponents of rejoin (in any other name) were on to something in order to strengthen our economy. I picked him up on the inconsistency of his claims. I didn’t even say I was pro-Brexit. Cue, pile-on from his fellow rejoiners, who snorted snidely and sarcastically while casting aspersions on my intellect, motives and character. What, really? Yes, really. One silly little man said I was as bad as his father for adhering to Brexit, so I asked him to introduce us. Well, I couldn't take him seriously.

Nexit
Finally, the net-zero ‘back it or bin it’ debate. One speaker said we needed to go slower. Another said that humans / nature would adapt to climate change just fine if left to their own devices. A third said that we were all going to die unless we ditched our tumble driers. The fourth speaker was Shahrar Ali, former deputy leader of the Green Party, who’s better known for his gender critical views that have irked his fellow Greens. I got a bit confused as to what he thought we should do. In one breath he said that achieving net zero relied on people understanding the concept and making sacrifices, but human nature meant that we wouldn’t. Then he said the current net zero policies didn’t go far enough. This inconsistency was a shame because, in many respects, I’d say he was the most genuine and original thinker on the panel.

At the end of the debate, I didn’t vote either way because I didn’t agree sufficiently with any of the speakers. My view is that the climate is changing, that humans are partly to blame, and that we are morally obliged to do something about it, but that many of the current policies towards net zero are, well, bonkers. Britain is responsible for less than 1% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs), so achieving net zero in Blighty alone will achieve absolutely nothing in the global scheme of things. We need to think and act globally on net zero – taxing aviation fuel universally would be a good start – while domestically focusing our efforts on reducing other more localised sources of blight, such as noise, air and water pollution, and reversing centuries of damage done to biodiversity. GGEs would reduce as a consequence, probably at a faster rate. The evidence for this latter claim is the proposed West Cumbrian coalmine, which was done for by the net zero mentality of no new GGEs in Blighty, whatever the cost. The truth is, the coalmine itself was GGE-neutral, but emissions from international shipping that carried coal from far flung corners would have reduced, and less coal would have been extracted from older, dirtier foreign mines. Not to mention the economic and social benefits for our country, Cumbria in particular.

TRexit?
Debates and debating societies are making the news elsewhere at the moment. The Oxford Union, under current President Arwa Hanin Elrayess (a Muslim student of Palestinian origin), has invited Tommy Robinson to debate “This house believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam”.

She explained, “…if you find what Robinson says to be dangerous – and many do – then the most reckless thing you can do is to deny the millions of people who listen to him a serious rebuttal of his statements. People will still hear his ideas, but they will do so in silence, undisturbed, and unchallenged in echo chambers.”

Unfortunately, her intelligent, insightful, mature reasoning has irked the likes of the Bishop of Oxford, who has called for the invitation to be withdrawn. He moaned that he and his fellow faith leaders stand against hatred, racism and those who would divide communities. Yes, I’m sure they do. But isn’t there more that the Bish could do against hatred etc. than just to ‘stand’? Has he no weapons? No tools? No manoeuvres? No defensive strongholds? No strategic advantage? No gameplan? No wingmen? No rhetoric?

Has he not got a Bible, for crying out loud?

The Bible, i.e. God, shows us how to win against Satan hisself: not by ignoring him and cancelling him, but by confronting him and providing an alternative vision and home for those who might stray in the wrong direction. If the Bishop wasn’t a Bishop, I’d tell him to strap on a pair, man up, and engage with Tommy Robinson to prove him wrong. If he can’t, or if Tommy R manages a couple of scores along the way, then maybe God ought to intervene and tell the Bish where he’s going wrong.