Whilst I discussed the various options of ‘membership’ I felt that the immediate effect of a ‘brexit’ was unlikely to provide a major impact on UK holidaymakers, with the exception of any currency fluctuations. 

When asked how I saw the months following a ‘brexit’ vote, I suggested that it was likely that we would enter into a period of what I called the ‘phoney war’; a period when there would be uncertainty and massive speculation and a great deal of fear.

Little did I realise at the time that my analysis would prove to be correct!

Since that fateful day, the country has suffered fractures and fissures that will take many years to repair whilst we slip recklessly into the promised land that is ‘brexit’. Throughout this phoney war period, I have watched and listened to the commentary and dialogue that is angry with the 48% and perhaps by now, itself?

For clues as to how I think our future will be governed, shaped and how your rights will be affected, I offer this analysis:

1. The composition of the Cabinet is revealing and leaving aside the three ‘musketeers’ of ‘brexit’ (Fox, Davis & Johnson), it is the appointment of Liz Truss and Priti Patelthat proves interesting. These latter politicians, along with Kwasi Kwarteng, Dominic Raab & Chris Skidmore were responsible for the publication of ‘Britannia Unchained’ which as the name suggests, offers a glimpse into the future they desire for the UK, through less regulation and a change in attitude of the British people. For example, they state that: “We cannot afford to listen to the siren voices of the statists who are happy for Britain to become a second rate power in Europe, and a third rate power in the world” and, “The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music”. (Note the reference to India, also offered by the MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, when he expressed the view that if Indian Standards were good enough for India, then they should be good enough for the UK - also interesting was the pre-Christmas offering from this MP about his 9 year old son and ‘brexit’). The book has come in for much criticism, particularly on its lack of research, but the fact that the UK Cabinet is populated with a heavy right-wing ideology, prepared to do what it must to secure its preferred industrial strategy should be one of great concern!
2. The Great Repeal Bill is offered to assuage the fears of many that the ‘rights’ that they currently enjoy will be lost in any ‘brexit’. The first sting in the tail is that whilst EU Law will apparently be migrated into UK domestic law, some of the Consumer provisions will fall to one side because they rely on a pan-European membership along with enforcement opportunities in that area. The second sting comes from government, which has already stated that even by transporting these rights into UK domestic law, they are each going to be reviewed and that which they consider as unnecessary or burdensome, will be stripped away - repealed. The third sting in the tail is that most of the changes will apparently be enacted by powers granted to Ministers using secondary legislation. The only scrutiny currently available is through a House of Lords Committee that examines the secondary legislation made; do you feel confident about the continuation of those rights now?
3. Since Autumn 2016, the mantra from the political class and its supporting commentators has been all about how ‘brexit’ is going to happen and that you may as well accept it. Unity it seems is the obligation of the day, masked by the sanctity of the mandate secured by the Referendum. This has been reinforced by the subtle message that you are either for us or against us, most notably through the commentary that to think otherwise qualifies you as a ‘Citizen of Nowhere’. The post Referendum message from Johnson and the Christmas message from the Prime Minister serves to emphasise that for the 48%, hope is lost, there is no debate; there should be no examination, reflection or public discussion - this is deconstruction in action;
4. The role of our constitutional Monarch is in serious question. The latest revelation from Laura Kuenssberg, strongly suggests that the Queen was not averse to offering her own opinion on the constitutional future of the UK, knowing that there would be the ever-present risk of her being exposed. This supported the ‘by Royal Appointment’ position by the Sun newspaper, when they told their readers that she was a backer of ‘brexit. But we should remember, the allure of the ‘return’ of the Kingdom only feeds into the desire to return to the World of Empire, as it appears to be suggested in ‘Britannia Unchained’. The support apparently flowing from Elizabeth II offers a false hope that greatness can be achieved from an attachment to the past; why are her words offered as a comforting acknowledgement, when other members of the Royal Family are criticised for straying into constitutional matters - is this the Establishment, the Elite, now confidently flexing their muscles against a weak opposition to ‘brexit’?
5. This latter point I believe feeds into what I think has been a political consensuality on the whole issue of EU Membership. Did Cameron really believe that the UK should stay in the European Union or, was he naively set-up to create the conditions, whereby the beliefs of the left and the right in politics merged into a territory of mutual benefit with the permission of the British people (let’s not forget that even the parliamentary briefing papers advised MP’s that the Referendum was only advisory and non-binding)? If you think about it, the politics of left and right are not necessarily exclusive, but the deconstruction of institutions, of a constitutional settlement, leads to them holding all the cards, winning an opportunity from which we return to the swing back and forth between the two extremes - have we been subjected to a consensual political coup d’etat which rejects the current construction of globalisation, only to replace it with a new form of globalisation driven by this ‘new’ elite?
6. Perhaps some comfort should be drawn from the 14% of UK MP’s who voted against the government on the recent vote as to the timetable of when to trigger Article 50? It is clear that there is a groundswell of discomfort within the House of Commons about ‘brexit’ and I would suggest that the vote whilst not completely crucial, revealed an undercurrent of British MP’s who are sufficiently uncomfortable with events since June 2016. The problem for UK MP’s is that I suspect that many are voting out of fear for their own future by ‘backing’ the ‘mandate’ on the UK & EU and finding it difficult to deal with the upsurge in those who believe in a harder politic, a narrow uninformed politic; a politic of intolerance;
7. The forthcoming boundary changes, created in the cauldron of the Camerongovernment, suggests that the ‘winner’ may well take all, with the UK possibly becoming an ‘elected’ one-party state, which is then free to set its own agenda and policies; perhaps at the behest of those, both within and outside the Cabinet, who support this new-form Globalisation?
8. My final observation concerns the attack on the European Convention on Human Rights. The Prime Minister has in the past been the recipient of set-backs on the application of this important piece of International Legislation. However, she seems determined to commit an even greater act of folly through the UK resiling from its obligations and creating a set of unique 'British' rights which only benefit government; is her approach following a growing elitist view that Human Rights is nothing more than a smorgasbord? It is simple; if politicians now feel that the route to resistance on this important area has been neutralised, what hope is there then for Consumer and Workers rights remaining as solidly as they do today?

This commentary simply reflects just some of the sub-text since June. We are now encouraged to think about our ‘choice’ in hard or soft terms when that was not even on the ballot paper (surely soft is essentially what we have already got?). 

But the great lie is now coming out for its second outing in the guise of recent representations made by Gove along the further suggestion that by having a ‘clean break’ (in recognition of the other lie that the other Member States would roll over and this presents us with a cul-de-sac choice), that we will be better off to the tune of £24bn each year; are we really going to fall for this - again?

It seems that with barely a whimper, barely a contradiction, the masters of obsfucation now feel free at the end of this phoney war to once again deploy their dark arts. 

Reflecting on my Sky News comment, I say to all Citizens and Consumers, the phoney war is now over, prepare yourself for the arrival of the Big Con; your future - your rights are now in the hands of the elites!

Copyright, All Rights Reserved - Frank Brehany - 2016 (First Published on 31/12/16)