The stupidities of ‘disruption’

With a commission on the constitution due to examine judicial review – as the ‘Secret Barrister’ indicates in a recent Guardian piece:

Led by a prime minister indulged by a lifetime of never being told no, and guided by a self-styled “disruptor” with no respect for truth or the rule of law, we have an executive which, perhaps uniquely, has no intention of deferring to the courts or to parliament, or being in any way bound by the law.

And when this could begin to indicate that Britain has given up on the rule of law because government is unaccountable, other countries might begin to notice.

With Britain’s food and energy trade deficits, countries lending to the UK government, will notice their holdings declining in value because of the declining exchange rate and then lose confidence in the government itself. Should that government’s own electorate lack confidence too – and this is perhaps the only ‘disadvantage’ of widespread English comprehension, where there is no place to hide – we are hurtling towards failed state territory.

Much of our manufacturing relies on JustInTime goods and materials from the EU. Regardless of what free trade deals Brexiters promise elsewhere, delays to British manufacturing will impact exports. Even if we source these materials and goods elsewhere, transportation time, costs and administrative delays will all be substantially increased.

This was Johnson’s pitch at the election:

So while Johnson has originally resigned over the proposed Withdrawal Agreement, he’s allegedly re-negotiated it and suggested it was some sort of ‘oven-ready’ triumph. Now, having suggested that his renegotiation has in fact resulted in a much worse deal – which I think was actually kite flying – he has decided it needs merely ‘tweaking’ improvements.

Presumably Cummings might be gradually understanding that Britain cannot realistically ignore international law when we currently lack sufficiency in both energy and food…

Additionally and amazingly when the UK is trying to negotiate trade agreements, even hinting that you will throw up an international agreement or two is a self inflicted own goal. ‘Trust us’ it is not!

Regrettably that attitude sums up all Brexiters.

Never mind manufacturing – indeed the pound has again declined – isn’t food rather important, when we are so deficient in home production – particularly when the Chief Farmer himself has said on Radio 4 that 40% tariffs on either fish or sheep to the EU will be a result of no deal? He says that’s fine because we will have ‘sovereignty’.

Not only can you not eat Sovereignty but even philosophically, it is not an absolute. And even the ‘Sovereign’ currency of Modern Monetary Theory says that (see Stephanie Kelton’s, The Deficit Myth’).

We also know we cannot be sovereign when we have extreme climate events already happening and, for example, Nigeria which has just lost a quarter of its rice harvest. I do trust that they have friends…

As David Allen Green says ‘The suggestion that a sovereign state cannot be sovereign when it is party to a treaty is inherently absurd, as the modern notion of a sovereign state is that it is a state capable of entering into a treaty.’

Cummings is supposed to be a disruptor.

When we are all short of food we will understand that his work will be complete.


  1. Bill Hughes -

    Food security is certainly a neglected subject in mainstream UK discourse. As you have clearly pointed out in this post and the previous one on foreign exchange rates decreasing. I suppose with decades of relatively “cheap” food (albeit a surfeit of junk), the public are largely unaware of the precarious position we are facing with food supply shortages and inevitable price rises. The UK wheat harvest went down by 30% this year, though we get most of our bread wheat from Canada and elsewhere, this is a warning about our vulnerability.

  2. Sean Danaher -

    One really does despair. In other news today Mairead McGuinness has been put forward as the new financial affairs EU commissioner by Ursula von der Leyen.

    The European Parliament has a veto I think, but she is senior vice president of the Parliament and I would be astounded if she did not get the position.

    Mairead is quite well known in the UK through various media appearances and seems to be the only pro-EU MEP ever invited on to BBC QT.

    She will have a major say on how much access to the EU is given to the City, messing with Ireland is not very sensible!

  3. davy green -

    Messing with Northern Ireland is never simple
    What is under looked at by outsiders-those who live outside Northern Ireland is that The Belfast Agreement (there is no such thing as The Good Friday Agreement} left Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom as long as its population decided that was what it wanted.No subsequent referendum has taken place to over Northern Ireland being part of The United Kingdom.therefore the EU gameplan has been a land grab of part of a territory of a state which voted to leave.That such an outlandish proposal was even entertained by a UK PM was and is a disgrace and is the root of this problem.Barnier and his gang should be shown the door at this week’s meeting in London until they learn basic good manner to respect the constitutional integrity of The United Kingdom

    1. Peter May -

      Perhaps that’s something Johnson should have thought off before agreeing to and getting Parliament to agree to the Withdrawal Agreement – nothing to do with Barnier!

    2. Jams O'Donnell -

      There was not an overall majority in NI for ‘Leave’, just as there was a wholesale rejection of ‘Leave’ in Scotland. The idea that the EU is making a ‘land grab’ in NI is just hollow rhetoric (aka ‘a lie).

      As the article pointed out:
      “As David Allen Green says ‘The suggestion that a sovereign state cannot be sovereign when it is party to a treaty is inherently absurd, as the modern notion of a sovereign state is that it is a state capable of entering into a treaty.’” – so your remark about ‘the constitutional integrity of the UK’ is in the same category as the other I mention above.

      So – just wind from you, really.

    3. Samuel Johnson -

      Arrant nonsense. The land grabbing in Ireland was done by the British whose colonial legacy is NI, aka the bastard child of the rape of Ireland. NI, as a matter of international law, is a *contingent* part of the UK, not a chattel. The arrangements of both the Belfast Agreement and the Withdrawal Agreement were freely entered into by the UK, unlike that of the partition of the country which was imposed on the Irish people with threats of “immediate and terrible war”. Unionists are a minority in decline and at some point the UK is going to say “enough is enough”. Holding the entire UK hostage as well as the integrity of the single market is a bit of an ask, and unionists should be in no doubt how quickly they’ll be sold down the river by the UK. The Tories attempting to break international law to blackmail the EU won’t end well, and these criminals will not be in office forever.

Comments are closed.