We were very tolerant towards your lesser self in the early stages of our taking over the top job at the centre of the Empire at No 10 Downing Street, London ENGLAND. We think we may even have done you the honour of visiting you in your bedsit at Bute Cottage in Aberburgh, although, of course, we do not recall.
However, following our tremendous and spectacular General Election victory, and now that we have grown in stature in our position as triumphant leader of OUR United Kingdom and become close to world statesmen such as Mr Netenyahu and Mr Erdogan, not to mention HRH Excellency Trump and His Majesty King Salman, we feel that further discussion with a junior minister of a mere district would be inappropriate. Besides which, as I am now busily (and successfully) engaged in a red, white and blue Brexit, which means Brexit (including for your district) so that Britain can take back control of everything from the foreigners who are out to get us British people, I’m simply too busy to be bothered with inferiors.
It has been decided, therefore, that if you have anything that you wish to discuss with your superiors here at Empire Central, in our great capital city of London, you should address those matters with the Rt Hon David Mud… Mund… well, you know who I mean, and of course, if you can find her (she seems to have gone walkabout since Ms Arlene and I struck up a friendship) the Rt Hon and Gallant Lady, Colonel Davidson. Alternatively, you may try to approach the Noble Lord Duncan in his Baronial Castle, although I understand that he doesn’t much like commoners. A curtsey is appropriate.
You will not, any longer, be allowed to address yourself directly to us personally, and we intend to instruct the queen that she is no longer to grant you an audience, but must hold herself always in readiness for any occasion on which we wish to have a photo-opportunity with her, or get her to open our parliament.
Do not let any of that make you feel any less important than you already are.
Rule Britannia. God save the Queen and Theresa May
Her Britannic Empr , sorry, Prime Ministerialness
Signed per pro
in her absence.
(Note to Cabinet Secretary: Send same sort of thing to that Welsh blokey, and the people in IOM, Channel Islands, and Gibraltar, Falklands and the rest of my empire. DO NOT ON ANY ACCOUNT SEND TO BELFAST on pain of death.)
So strong and stable that it is being propped up by a party of religious fundamentalists that believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.
So strong and stable that, in addition to the DUP’s help, they have now asked for Labour, the official opposition, to come to their rescue (and as far as I know she hasn’t even had the good grace to bung them a billion!) To be fair, Corbyn declined, but offered to give her a copy of the Labour manifesto!
I think we can now safely assume that Mrs May has run out of soundbites. Brexit means Brexit means…erm…red, white and blue catastrophe!
Let’s be honest, politicians, certainly ambitious politicians, when they are on a winning streak, don’t want to share any of the glory with anyone else. So it’s unlikely that May is thinking: “Ah, yes, Brexit is working very nicely. It’s heading towards being a fabulous success, so let’s ask Jeremy if he wants to contribute anything to the process so he can take some of the credit when, in 18 months, we reach the sunny uplands of freedom from the EU and strike out on our own. Rule Britannia, God Save the Queen.”
And Mrs May is not the sort of person who takes kindly to suggestions from others. She has been offered suggestions on how to make Brexit work for Scotland, for example. And it took her a matter of minutes to reject anything put forward by Edinburgh.
But it may be that now she is beginning to see what some of the rest of us have seen for some time. Some of the issues laid out here, for example.
There just isn’t any way that this can end well…and frankly, that includes the idea of scrapping the whole thing and staying put. Can you imagine the outrage of the hard right wing? And here, I’m not talking about the hard right elite. Jacob Rees Mogg might tut and shake his head and use words like “floccinaucinihilipilification”, invented in Eton especially for his likes; Michael Gove and Liam Fox might explode (no bad thing); Nigel Farage would find again his raison d’être and stop sucking up to President (lol) Trump like a pathetic lost soul.
But the real problem would be likely come from the average Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun reader who wound justifiably feel let down after many years of reading about the paradise that was supposed to be coming their way.
Can you just imagine the reaction of those papers… and of their readership were that to be snatched away?
Oh and what about THIS lot?
I think we can guess who’d be on the top of all those stolen pallets they’re for aburning tomorrow.
While we’re chortling, I noticed an article today about iconic British Brands beloved of Brexiteers. It’s quite interesting, but one thing that struck me immediately was that research shows that the brands most favoured by Brexiteers include HP Sauce. That archetypical English accompaniment to food…which is now made in the Netherlands.
So the Brexsaucers better hope we get a special exemption!
According to Reuters, there are moves at the top of the Conservative Party to depose May and replace her with Hammond. Davis would be deputy prime minister.
“I think Philip is the only plausible candidate for a couple of years, with DD (David Davis) running Brexit,” the paper (The Sunday Times) quoted a serving minister as saying.
“He is a more credible caretaker than the current prime minister. The PM’s brand is so damaged it is painful. The calculation that people are beginning to make is that she is so inadequate we can’t wait two years with her in place.”
A former cabinet colleague was quoted by the paper as saying that Hammond believed he could do the job. Not all cabinet members were in agreement, however, with some backing Davis and others favouring Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
A spokesman for May’s Downing Street office declined to comment.
The trouble seems to me to be that Hammond is only “better” because he and Davis may work together a bit more harmoniously to see if we can get a softer Brexit than May was proposing.
Of course, that would be good for some of us, at least. Remaining in the Customs Union and the Single Market is essential for Scotland’s economy. The trouble is that to be a part of these, countries must accept the now famous “four freedoms”.
These are freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour.
And the EU is saying, if you want one, you get them all.
And of course, there is the EUs oversight of the laws that surround all of these freedoms, by (horror) European courts. And at a cost.
Now, that might be acceptable if they hadn’t run a campaign that vilified everyone who was foreign, and played big, with the help of the comic press, on the “send them home” rhetoric. That campaign ran pretty in tandem with “bring back control of our laws” to English courts, which played well with some people. Well, until the English High Court found against the government at which point, of course, the English courts became the enemies of the people! (Go figure!) The third part of the campaign made it clear that the savings to Brits would be enormous. Remember £350 million a week to the desperately underfunded Health Services? Who could resist that?
If that was the three-pronged attack that the campaign came up with (and won on), it’s a bit hard for it now to say, “erm… well, actually, the foreigners won’t go home; the European courts will still have sway, and we probably won’t save any money”.
Then they’d have to explain that, whilst being in more or less the same situation as before, there won’t be any more EU social or infrastructure grants, farmers will have to rely on the UK government for subsidies and finally, the UK will no longer have any veto on the regulations that it has to obey.
Some might say that Mrs May was right, no deal is worse than a bad deal…
I just wonder how long the Tory Party could hold it together if that were the outcome, regardless of leadership, if that was what they had to put to the people in 2019.
Return of Farage and UKIP, backed by the EDL, DUP, Britain First, and England’s own Marine Le Penn: Tommy Robinson?
For a more detailed (and knowledgeable) coverage of Brexit, I advise a regular read over at Terry’s blog.
One of my minions, a pleasant enough fellow by the name of Tris, was looking through the papers this morning, and, having made short shrift of the respectable ones, decided to have a glance at the rest.
In doing so he came upon your article about Theresa’s offer for EU citizens currently residing in Britain, as they have every right to, the right to remain there after Britain leaves the EU on March 31, 2019. He noticed that you used the word “migrants”to describe these people, many of whom are the backbone of our NHS, healthcare, catering, agriculture and tourism industries (amongst others) in these islands, and who are absolutely essential to their continued success.
[As an aside, it is interesting to note that much has been made in the right-wing tabloid press about these “migrants” taking British jobs and being responsible for the 1.6 million unemployed in the UK.
Of course, this isn’t really accurate, as I’m sure you well know but the truth doesn’t make great headlines, does it?. Many of the 1.6 million unemployed are very short term out of work. Ending one job and unemployed for a couple of weeks before starting a new one, to be replaced on the register by other temporary unemployed people.
Of the rest, those that might be considered to be “long-term” unemployed, a very considerable number are over 50. The trouble is that people in that age group face considerable discrimination in the employment market for a variety of reasons including health, skills, stamina and image issues.
In the younger age groups, other issues including criminal records, drink and drugs abuse and ill health exclude large numbers for the serious employment market. How many do you employ?]
Of course, it won’t have escaped your notice that even if businesses wanted to employ people from the long-term unemployed categories above, and supposing the necessary skills could be found there, there would still be a massive shortfall, three million being considerably greater a number than 1.6 million]
I note too that your report calls Brits living in the EU, “ex-pats”, and appears to underestimate their number by around a sixth.
[Some of this number are people of working age who could doubtless take up posts left vacant by the departing “migrants” were they to go home. Many, however, are people who retired to the sun and who would/could not.]
To return to the original subject of this letter, could you perhaps let me know why someone who goes from, say Germany to England to work would be considered by your newspaper to be a “migrant”, whilst someone who makes the opposite journey would be an “ex-pat”? Is it biological? Are Brits somehow different to other people, or is it just prejudice on the part of your paper.
Munguin wishes David Davis the very ‘best of British’ when he goes to Brussels to start talks on Monday with his brand new team who have in the job only a few days and are still looking about to see where the canteen is. He doesn’t, however, hold out much in the way of hope that it will be anything other than a complete catastrophe. In the article below what was already a seriously bad situation appears to have become catastrophic
I’ve copied this from the FT (without permission) because some people don’t seem to be able to access their articles. I know there’s a payway, but I don;t pay and yet seem able to get in. Weird!
The UK’s Brexit department has seen two of its four ministers depart this week, just days before negotiations with the EU are due to start, in a sign of mounting tensions between Downing Street and the ministry’s leadership.
David Jones, who led the Welsh arm of the Vote Leave campaign ahead of last June’s referendum, was sacked on Monday night and replaced by Joyce Anelay, a Foreign Office veteran who campaigned to remain in the EU. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, was not warned.
George Bridges, who was in charge of pushing Brexit legislation through parliament, quit on Tuesday after falling out with Theresa May, the prime minister.
According to people close to Lord Bridges, an EU advocate, he had become frustrated with the lack of consultation between Downing Street and the Department for Exiting the EU (Dexeu).
“Bridges is said to have quit on policy grounds, convinced Brexit couldn’t work,” said one Whitehall figure. “There is some disarray.”
Even after the departure of Mrs May’s key aides after the election, Lord Bridges continued to be “unhappy with how things were going,” the Whitehall figure said. The challenge of taking a slew of Brexit-related legislation through a hung parliament in the coming two years was also daunting, his allies added.
Lord Bridges was replaced on Tuesday by Steve Baker, who headed the contingent of pro-Leave Conservative MPs during the Brexit campaign.
Officials tried to shrug off the news, with one saying that little should be read into the loss of some “junior ministers”. A Brexit department spokesman said it was “nonsense to suggest that the Department for Exiting the European Union is not ready for the start of negotiations”.
But Jill Rutter, programme director at the Institute for Government, described the personnel changes as deeply undesirable.
“This is absolutely the time when Dexeu needs to get moving, both with a major raft of legislation in parliament and the start of the Brexit negotiations. The departure of both ministers basically makes what was a difficult task even more difficult.”
Before the latest departures, Dexeu had already been hit by the exit of James Chapman, special adviser to David Davis, the Brexit secretary, who left Whitehall for the private sector. Mr Davis lost another key ally, his parliamentary private secretary Stewart Jackson, who lost his seat in the election.
Elsewhere, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who was put in charge of overseeing Brexit’s impact on financial services in March, also abruptly departed on Tuesday.
Dominic Cummings, the mastermind of last year’s successful Leave campaign, said the departures were just the “tip of the iceberg”.
Bridges is said to have quit on policy grounds, convinced Brexit couldn’t work . . . There is some disarray
“Top Whitehall officials are screaming that DEXU [sic] under [cabinet secretary Jeremy] Heywood and DD [David Davis] is total shambles & disaster likely,” he said on Twitter. “If Leave MPs don’t assert themselves to force management changes on Number 10 and DEXU Brexit talks = guaranteed debacle.”
The two new ministers will have only days to get up to speed with a host of different responsibilities.
Barry Gardiner, shadow trade secretary, said the government should slow down and take stock. “This sort of turnover of ministers and senior advisers that the department has seen poses the question of how on earth, a week after the general election, the government can be ready with a new team in place to take the negotiations forward.”
It is the departure of Lord Bridges — voluntarily — which sheds the most light on the tumult inside Dexeu. He was responsible for taking the Article 50 legislation through the House of Lords and was effectively responsible for the fine details of the Great Repeal Bill.
A former adviser to John Major, he ran the Tory research department in the 2000s and became a peer in 2015. Before becoming a minister last year he ran a lobbying firm and was an adviser to Ana Botin, group chairman of Banco Santander. His close allies include George Osborne, former chancellor, and Lord Hill, the former EU commissioner.
“George had a gruelling and difficult job getting the Article 50 bill through the Lords, the upper house is pretty much uncontrollable at the moment,” said one ally.
Lord Bridges could take his recent experience back into the private sector, the person suggested.