“THE UK will not negotiate any arrangements in which the UK does not have control of its own laws and political life.”
That being the opening gambit in the Johnsonian approach to trade negotiations with the EU, then his threat of achieving a broad outline by June or he will walk away and fall back on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, is a “canard”!
The process of negotiating any deal is that there is mutual give and take and agreement to align mutual aspects for reciprocal benefit, provided they are subject to periodic review.
Each partner agrees to align aspects of its own laws for mutual benefit and sustainability.
The opening gambit above indicates an attitude that cannot fit into any trade deal at all. It implies an anarchic approach and one which does not commit to agreement. Perhaps one drawn up by misfits and weirdos among Cummings’s back-room squad?
By invoking the threat of WTO, is that not another deal which limits political control and a form of alignment with other “laws”?
The Johnsonian approach is cakeism writ small and reveals a contradiction at the heart of his governmental approach.
The unspoken dilemma for No 10 is that it has been using megaphone tactics to impress the natives about reclaiming sovereignty from the malignant EU, but does not know how to take the next step as this would involve a form of negotiated alignment which is a sine qua non (Latin loan word) in any form of inter-state agreement.
By putting themselves into a cul-de-sac, ironically a loan word from the French, the UK Government simply issues bluster after bluster.
It has been apparent since 2016 that any deal will not be as good as the one had as a member of the EU, something the UK has not yet grasped as it tries to wriggle and, of course, shift the blame onto the other side across the Channel.
As The Sun has Iain Duncan Smith blabbing on about the EU being worried about the next phase of Brexit, reasoned observers here know that is simply megaphoning “par excellence”, another loan word from French!! Perhaps the UK laws will be extended to ban all loan words, especially those from French, in our vocabulary and take back control of our own “langue’age” – yes, a loan word from French.
We will no doubt watch with excitement as Boris Johnson, Gove and co try to retrace their steps out of the cul-de-sac. Or maybe they will simply cut and run, blaming en route (another French loan word) the EU for not giving in to their entitlement.
John Edgar
Kilmaurs
I AGREE with the excellent article by Kevin McKenna about Angus Robertson and Joanna Cherry (The Robertson vs Cherry contest is a complete failure of SNP leadership, February 26). However, I do prefer Ms Cherry as the prospective SNP MSP candidate for Edinburgh Central rather than Mr Robertson.
Both are obviously big noises within the SNP party and both equally well-known but for very different background professional reasons. What separates them for me is the simple fact that Joanna Cherry comes from Edinburgh and so is well-known by the citizens of Edinburgh already. Her current Westminster seat apparently includes part of the Holyrood constituency which makes her doubly well-known. We are all well aware of her legal qualifications and consequential courtroom success over Boris Johnson’s government. This has to be “street cred” insurmountable by most other politicians.
By contrast, it was to Angus Robertson’s dilemma that he managed to lose his Moray parliamentary seat to the unforgiving Tory Douglas Ross, who has failed, along with his other Scottish Tory colleagues, to represent Scotland since that fateful 2017 UK General Election. Does it still carry weight about Angus Robertson’s previous success as a Scottish National Party politician? Mebby aye, mebby naw, depending on what the voting public remember.
For me, it is what has been achieved in this current parliamentary session in both Westminster and Holyrood. Unfortunately, and due to his losing an important parliamentary seat, Angus Roberson doesn’t cut it, under those circumstances. I expect other longer-serving SNP members with longer serving memories will disagree with me. That is their choice as this is mine.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
TACTICAL voting has clearly become more established in recent years. Ruth Wishart’s column advocated this with regard the next Holyrood election, and the subsequent readers’ responses in The National highlighted the array of opinions regarding this. I myself feel the notion has possibilities but is fraught with difficulties. I found myself agreeing more with John Hutchinson, who advocated employing a professional psephologist and producing voting preferences advice for each Scottish constituency . The National could have a pivotal role, in this and nearer the time explain the subtleties of the voting system and the best way,wherever you live, to vote if your preference is for an independent Scotland.
Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus
AS the palace’s new media push goes into overdrive trying to persuade a gullible British public that it’s Harry and Meghan who have trashed the otherwise perfect Walton-esque royal family,
and not Prince Andrew, I’m intrigued to see what will occur at the latest publicly funded bash for the offspring of prince perv and suck-my-toes Fergie. Remember Fergie also took money from Epstein during one of her many financial crises.
Perhaps instead of the contents of the royal dressing-up box being on full display, Andrew could have a T-shirt emblazoned with the caption “At least I’m not black”.
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel