We shall know later this morning if the Tory party has had a collective death wish and, as widely anticipated, chosen the moral and intellectual bankrupt Boris Johnson as their leader. Let's be honest, it would be a miracle if they haven't. It is difficult for me to see how it will not all end in disaster for them and him and probably us. Interestingly, someone posted a link on our Facebook page yesterday to a book review by Fintan O'Toole of Boris' only novel published in 2004. It's well worth a read - the review I mean, not the book.
The novel was called Seventy-two virgins and the hero is an MP named Roger Barlow who O'Toole describes as "the hero, like Johnson himself at the time, is a backbench Conservative member of
the House of Commons. Roger Barlow is, indeed, a somewhat unflattering
self-portrait—he bicycles to Westminster, he is unfaithful to his wife,
he is flippantly racist and politically opportunistic, and he is
famously disheveled:"
Johnson is famous for throwing in obscure foreign words and one passage in the novel is this:
"There was something prurient about the way he [Roger Barlow] wanted to read about his own destruction, just as there was something weird about the way he had been impelled down the course he had followed. Maybe he wasn’t a genuine akratic. Maybe it would be more accurate to say he had a thanatos urge". [Emphases added]
The review discusses Johnson's use of the word akratic, which apparently means: not in control of oneself. O'Toole explains it at length. But the other word, thanatos is also interesting because it means death wish. Thanatos is literally the god of death in Greek mythology.
We shall see in the next twelve months if his elevation to the leadership was in fact the party's death wish as well as his own. We live in hope.
Johnson's problems will begin tomorrow afternoon - and among them will be the Irish border backstop. On the surface his difficulties will be even worse than Theresa May's. She at least was not necessarily unhappy with close regulatory alignment, and I'm not sure the DUP are that bothered. But Johnson actually resigned from the cabinet in 2018 over the issue. His resignation letter doesn't mention the backstop at all but does say:
"Conversely, the British government has spent decades arguing against
this or that EU directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or
ill-thought out. We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that
we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law, without changing
an iota, because it is essential for our economic health - and when we
no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.
"In
that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony - and many
will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that
particular arrangement".
I think he confuses his own decades spent arguing against this or that EU directive with the British government which almost invariably voted for the directives and gold-plated them afterwards into the bargain. But leave that aside, it's clear he wants regulatory divergence writ large, if not to completely wreck our economic ill-health, at least accepting that it may make us worse off.
All of this makes the need for some Alternative Arrangements on the Irish border all the more important. The Alternative Arrangements Commission (AAC), set up by Nicky Morgan and Greg Hands with the blessing of the ERG, published their final report last Thursday to the sound of one hand clapping as I covered yesterday (HERE). Nobody has taken up the ideas because they are simply not workable. The UK government and the EU have spent years with virtually unlimited resources checking every border in the world and couldn't find a solution so it was highly unlikely the AAC would stumble across one they hadn't looked at.
But last night I noticed Shanker Singham, who says he was the chairman of the technical panel which developed the AAC's plan (although their website just lists him as a member) has an article in The Telegraph (HERE no£) defending the report saying that it:
"set out in a detailed, 273 page report precisely what is necessary to ensure alternative arrangements on the Irish border so the backstop is never triggered, or is replaced"
It's actually 268 pages but never mind, in the article he tells gullible Telegraph readers:
"Even the British-Irish Chamber of Commerce, not noted for its support for anything other than the backstop, has conceded that there are no unicorns here".
He's right about the BICC's comments on unicorns, but lets have a look at what the BICC actually did say.
"While the report most certainly does not rely on the unicorns of
untested technology and blue sky ideas, it still asks a lot of EU
negotiators for an outcome that would ultimately be worse for businesses
on the island of Ireland. The British Irish Chamber’s view of these
proposals, no matter how genuine the initiative, is that they lack
credibility in the reality of how all-island trade actually works".
So, the BICC say his report that set out 'precisely what is necessary' in truth lacks 'credibility in the reality of how all-island trade actually works'.
If Johnson was relying on the AAC for one of the 'abundant solutions' to the Irish backstop he says are out there now, he will need to go back to the drawing board.
