Is this woman the most stupid politician on the planet?

Answer: Possibly, but probably not!
Your Editor is sexist. That is to say he treats women different from men due to the fact that they are women and not men. This is discriminatory. Do I care? No. Do I apologise? No. The choice of the above image is an example of how your Editor practises his discrimination. There are many, many unflattering images to be found of politicians. If we were to castigate such as Buffoon Boris, Dimwit Davis or Hapless Hammond, we may very well choose and unflattering image. However, Madame is a woman and therefore we won’t!
We know there are young female students at Falmouth University who will be annoyed at this. Well my Dears, it’s how the Editor was brought up. You stand up when a lady enters a room. You open the door for her. You even give your seat up on a bus for her. That’s the way it was and for some of us, still is.
And now to expand upon our answer to our own question:
The learned Dr. North today (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86679) shares with his readers some valuable intelligence, gleaned from an inside source and not based on the uniformed speculation of another. It is that the decision to “Brexit” and to leave the EEA (the Internal/Single Market) was a decision Madame took on her own without discussing the issue in Cabinet.
Dr. North rightly comments that to take such a momentous and far reaching decision without agreeing it with the cabinet is extraordinary!
However, it MIGHT be that Madame has taken the leaf out of another’s book.
That is the book of Captain Marko Ramius of the Soviet SSBN “Red October”. Of course, Captain Ramius does not exist except as a character in the 1990 movie, “The Hunt for Red October”.
A brief synopsis of the plot: Senior Red Navy Captain Marko Ramius (played by Sean Connery) commands Red October – a new Typhoon-class nuclear missile submarine with a stealth “caterpillar drive”, rendering it undetectable to passive sonar – for her maiden patrol. Ramius fears that the submarine’s technology could make nuclear war more likely and therefore decides to defect and take the sub to “the West”. He does so in the knowledge that his key officers will support his actions.
Unbeknown to his key officers, Ramius has sent a letter to the Soviet leader advising him of his actions. The letter being timed to be delivered after the fact. When Ramius advises his officers that he has done this they are naturally shocked and angered. Then Ramius delivers the line:
“When Cortes landed in the New World, he had their boats burned, leaving them no retreat. They were therefore better motivated.”
The revelation by Dr. North today has caused your Editor to remember this snippet from what was a very good film – IMO!
Thus we have to address the question: Why would Madame take such a decision alone? Possibly for the same reasons as Ramius. Hers was not a decision that the cabinet would all have signed up to. Any more than Red October’s officers would have signed up to.
Given the inherent “built in” disadvantageous requirements contained in Article 50, the decision to leave the Single Market can best be described as an act of economic and political lunacy. Just as Ramius’s letter to the Soviet leader that he was making off with the Red Navy’s most potent weapon!
So, why would Madame do such a thing?
Of course, it could be as Dr. North suspects: She is a fool.
However, working on the basis that Madame is not a fool we should look at her record.
Madame was a Remainer. True, she like Comrade Corbyn did not take a high profile during the campaign. But that could be for reasons that she wanted to keep her job – whatever the result of the referendum!
Finding herself in 10 Downing Street, she may well have taken a political decision to seek to implement the wishes of the voters as expressed in the result.
Given what was said by the Leave campaign, both Nigel Farage and Henry Bolton (UKIP’s former and current leader) are absolutely right in stating that the voters did NOT vote for “the Norway Option”. This is because many voters (whether or not they voted “Leave” or “Remain”) see this as not really leaving the EU.
Now whilst your Editor, Dr. North and Mr Booker may argue that remaining in the EEA (Internal/Single Market) and rejoining EFTA is NOT remaining in the EU and is not causing the UK to be subject to the ECJ – the FACT is that most voters (whether or not they voted “Leave” or “Remain”) will NOT agree! To them, “Brexit” means leaving the EEA. It means being able to implement what Mr Farage erroneously described as “an Australian style points based [immigration] system.
Here is a FACT: It does not matter that the voters are factually in the wrong. That is the view they hold.
Politically, what Madame has achieved by her actions is to silence (to a great extent) the Leaver campaigners in UKIP and those such as Messrs. Redwood and Rees-Mogg on her back benches.
If Madame persists on her present course, there will come a time when it will become clear to all that the UK is heading for disaster. At that point there will be calls to prevent disaster. Given that we are probably in terms of practical politics – any treaty including the UK “Brexiting” into EFTA and remaining in the EEA will require ratification by all parties and this could NOT be guaranteed even if a treaty was ready to begin ratification on New Year’s Day 2018! The ONLY course away from going over the cliff, into the abyss, hitting the rocks or a metaphor of your own choosing, is to revoke Article 50 and call the whole thing off!
This might have been the reason why Madame succumbed to the temptation to hold another General Election when she did. She – and most other observers – saw Comrade Corbyn as an asset [for the Tories] and a liability for Labour.
Madame may have thought with a towering majority in the Commons and a disillusioned opposition, the Tories would have had some padding to take the political hit of an abandoned Brexit at the next General Election.
Of course, Madame’s strategy is high risk but it is based on the assumption that at the end of the day the voters will follow the example of turkeys and NOT vote for an early Christmas [UK] Thanksgiving [USA].
However, Madame’s strategy has TWO flaws!
Flaw #1: many voters (whether or not they voted “Leave” or “Remain”) do NOT believe the dire predictions of such as your Editor, Dr. North and Mr Booker! They, along with virtually every member of UKIP believe with a quiet confidence that Brexit will NOT mean disaster and whilst there might be minor hiccups these will be of little consequence in the great scheme of things! Suggestions that all UK airports will be closed and all ports blocked and M2 and the M25 becoming a giant lorry park are regarded as crazy!
Flaw #2: there will be “certain parties” in the City of London and elsewhere who will look askance at the prospect of a Corbyn government and might decide to follow the strategy outlined in our article of 18th November (http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2017/11/18/brexit-the-ultimate-betrayal/)
The idea of “short term pain” (the chaos a “no deal Brexit”) for “long term gain” (re-entry into the EU along with entry into the Eurozone and the Schengen Area) might cause these “certain parties” to encourage such as UKIP in their fantasy as the result will be a UK where a democratically elected government – even if it were Comrade Prime Minister Corbyn and Comrade Chancellor McDonnell – would have NO POWER to do other than implement the policies of austerity imposed by the European Central Bank to reduce the UK’s sovereign debt.
You see, such a situation would appeal to these “certain parties”!
Now, much has been made recently of “tax dodging” be it “tax avoidance” [legal] or “tax evasion” [illegal].
Especially in a European [EU] context.
Now allow us to drop a bombshell: The EU is not in and of itself opposed to companies choosing the lowest tax domicile. They merely want to set limits! “No tax” and “very low tax” is something Frau Merkel does not like! However, were Comrade Chancellor McDonnell to re-introduce a regime of confiscatory taxation such as that introduced by Denis Healey, she would have NO OBJECTION to companies and rich people taking advantage of other EU member states such as Ireland – as long as Ireland kept within certain limits.
Thus were a government of Comrade Prime Minister Corbyn and Comrade Chancellor McDonnell having been forced to impose policies of austerity they may well react by imposing confiscatory levels of taxation on wealthy people and businesses. They are likely to abolish private education forcing the closure of the UK’s “public [they are not] schools.”
However, in a UK constrained by is vassal status in the EU and the Eurozone and the Schengen Area, it would be completely unable to prevent these educational establishments relocating and reincorporating in a country such as the Irish Republic! Here such establishments could reacquire charitable status. Any attempt by Comrade Prime Minister Corbyn and Comrade Chancellor McDonnell to impose VAT on the school fees would FAIL. Indeed, many UK businesses would relocate in terms of their tax domicile to Ireland. Many wealthy Britons would also relocate to Ireland.
To sum up: Your Editor does NOT know whether there will be a 2nd Referendum and a revocation of Article 50 or a “no deal Brexit”.
What we are confident about however is that Dr. North’s fears about years, even decades of economic decline outside the EEA is overly pessimistic.
The British Gazette is firmly of the opinion that were a “no deal Brexit” to take place, the EU would very quickly offer an “Emergency Re-Entry [into the EU] Treaty” subject to the requirement of the UK government (or what would at the time pass for a government) of a referendum to endorse it. This would require entry into the Eurozone and the Schengen Area.
The British Gazette has mentioned the time-scale of the “One Hundred Days”. Certainly, the City of London would want the chaos of a “no deal Brexit” to be as short as possible. Dr. North in his post today has used the phrase “The thousand days of Brexit”. 1,000 days is 33 months or 2 years and 9 months. This would be VERY damaging! 100 days or 3 months of “no deal Brexit” will be deeply, deeply damaging – not only to the economy but to the social fabric of the UK. Practical politics would mean that the Brexit and Brentry could not be done in less than 100 days.
In any event, Madame’s decision to pursue Mr Farage’s and Mr Bolton’s “Impossible Dream” was a fatal and far reaching one.