Minister for common sense?

Minister for common sense?

Nov 18, 2023 | Bylines, News

Esther McVey, minister for common sense: sounds ludicrous; here’s why it’s insidious writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines.

For some, Rishi Sunak’s shuffle felt like a return of some common sense. Still, the appointment of Esther McVey as minister for commonsense, or even more ridiculously named, ‘Commonsense Tsar’, only proves it’s still all about nonsense.

 

Minister for common sense

Reactions to the announcement that Conservative MP Esther McVey was given a brand new shiny ministerial position as the minister for common sense were met understandably with confusion and well-deserved hilarity.

Here we have the Conservative Party who, in general, are against the so-called ‘nanny state’ and all about individual freedom and individual responsibility, yet we are now to believe that the British public needs schooling to ensure what they think of common sense is instilled in us all.

What will the position require, and what about the scope of the work? We already have a good idea because others have already laid the groundwork.

 

The Conservatives Common Sense Group

Yes, there’s a Conservative sub-group for common sense, which I wrote about here in March 2022. Set up in 2020 by Sir John Hayes, CBE MP, it has dozens of Conservative MP members. It is yet another Conservative group whose focus is on attacking liberal and compassionate thinking, challenging the government on policies like net zero and immigration. It is a significant player in the so-called ‘war on wokeness’.

They even have their own manifesto : ‘Conservative Thinking for a Post-Liberal Age’. A 136-page collection of what can only be called essays of opinion, written by some of the group’s members.

Many of their thoughts and ideas in the book are predictable. There are frequent attacks on human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir John talks of the liberal elite and intolerant “woke” dogma of Black Lives Matter, transgender rights activists, advocates of “decolonisation”, and critics of “white privilege”, describing them all as “woke warriors”. He calls Extinction Rebellion extremists and attacks institutions and multinational businesses like Starbucks and the National Trust for daring to educate its members on slavery ties to some of its properties.

 

What they call common sense is, in fact, ultra-conservatism

Elements of ultra-conservatism typically rely on cultural crisis; they frequently support anti-globalism and adopt stances of anti-immigration, nationalism, and sovereignty. They use populism and political polarisation with in-group and out-group practices. Their primary economic ideology is neoliberalism, while the use of conspiracy theories is also common amongst ultraconservatives.

 

You can see these ideas play out in both the manifesto and a letter written to the Telegraph, signed by Sir John and others, stating:

“Part of our mission is to ensure that institutional custodians of history and heritage tasked with safeguarding and celebrating British values are not coloured by cultural Marxist dogma, colloquially known as the ‘woke agenda’. History must neither be sanitised nor rewritten to suit snowflake preoccupations, and a clique of powerful, privileged liberals must not be allowed to rewrite our history in their image.”

Translated: Our mission is to ensure only the history we want to be taught is taught. It should not acknowledge any acts of brutality or atrocities committed by the Empire. People calling for what has been suppressed by us to be revealed are a danger to our society, a threat to our imperial greatness and British exceptionalism. A traitorous Marxist, liberal, set out to destroy the society we made in OUR image.

 

Why has McVey been tasked with leading the government’s ‘anti-woke’ agenda?

McVey entered the House of Commons as MP for Wirral West at the 2010 general election, lost her seat in 2015, and re-entered parliament in 2017. She stood in the 2019 Conservative leadership election but finished last. She then left the Cabinet and returned to the backbenches when Boris Johnson became PM and sacked her as housing minister.

McVey has caused controversy over the years with her comments on the welfare system, defending the bedroom tax introduced by David Cameron’s government and describing the rise of foodbanks since the financial crisis as “positive”. McVey also defended sanctions imposed on benefit claimants for making minor mistakes. During the leadership election, she refused to back net zero targets for 2050, and her husband, Philip Davies, was one of only five MPs to have voted against the UK’s Climate Change Act in 2008.

In June 2021, she joined GB News, with her husband joining later. They jointly presented programmes titled Friday and Saturday Morning with Esther and Philip, which she has now had to step away from due to her new position. She also regularly writes for the Daily Express.

GB News has come under criticism for having Conservative MPs as hosts as Ofcom rules are clear: no politician can be used as an interviewer or reporter “unless editorially justified”, while Ofcom has now found McVey and GB News (who currently have 14 live investigations by Ofcom) to be in breach of impartiality rules.

GB News supports Conservative policy, populism and thinking above all others. They regularly indulge in the ‘anti-woke’ agenda, conspiracy theory, climate change denial and hard-right populism. Like the Conservative government, they are on a mission to divide and conquer us.

To distract us from their astounding failings, they set one group of people against another, attacking compassion, empathy and tolerance; therefore, they have provided McVey with the ideal training ground to continue this path. Now, unluckily for us, she gets to do it all in the name of common sense and government.

A desperate plan from a desperate prime minister

A desperate plan from a desperate prime minister

Nov 17, 2023 | Bylines, News

Sunak’s latest cunning plan is just another terrible idea that’s doomed to failure. Rather like his government, his party, and Sunak himself, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Rishi Sunak has a plan. It’s not a very cunning plan, but it is one that Baldrick would be proud of. The prime minister, in response to the largely expected Supreme Court ruling on the Rwanda deportation plan, is not a happy bunny. He has, yet again, been thwarted (who ever used that word before Brexit?), by the law. And here was him thinking that as PM, he was the one that made all the laws, and everyone had to obey him.

The Supreme Court decision

On Wednesday 15 November, the UK Supreme Court handed down its ruling in response to former home secretary Suella Braverman’s final appeal. The court unanimously dismissed the appeal – an attempt to overturn earlier rulings – and upheld the Court of Appeal’s earlier conclusion that “the Rwanda policy is unlawful”.

In their judgment the court determined there were “substantial grounds” for believing there was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda. This could lead to asylum seekers being subjected to human rights breaches and to being returned wrongfully to their country of origin. Lord reed concluded, “the Home Secretary’s appeal is therefore dismissed”.

Sunak’s desperate Rwanda plan

Despite recent suggestions from Braverman that there was no plan B in the event of the Supreme Court ruling against the government, Sunak seems to have other ideas. His response was immediate, which rather suggested he already suspected what the court’s decision might be. Appearing at a news conference, Sunak said he was taking “the extraordinary step of announcing emergency legislation” which would “enable parliament to confirm that our new treaty is safe”. Which, of course, it wouldn’t be.      

He went on to say that he would “not allow a foreign court, like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), to block these flights”, rather ignoring the fact that it was highest court in the UK that made this final ruling.

“The plan in full”, according to Sunak, is to ratify a new agreement with Rwanda that will provide legal protections. Asylum seekers deported from the UK would be “protected against removal” from Rwanda by law. Whether the Rwandan government, or indeed the British one, could be trusted to respect and abide by international law is questionable, to say the least.

Sunak is, he says, “prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships to remove the obstacles in our way”. Should the ECHR choose “to intervene against parliament”, the PM is “prepared to do whatever is necessary to get flights off”. Sunak went on say that the British people expect the “boats to stop”, and claimed – despite all evidence to the contrary – that progress is being made.

Sunak’s speech, repeated on social media, was accompanied by a meme stating, “When I said I would stop the boats, I meant it”. His Twitter (X) thread ended with him reiterating the “need to stop the boats” and with the suggestion that the Rwanda deportation policy was “an essential part of the deterrent”. The rise this year in the numbers of desperate asylum seekers willing to risk all to cross the Channel in small boats would appear to contradict that claim.

Widespread condemnation

There has been widespread criticism of the Rwanda policy both in parliament and across social media. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said at the despatch box on Wednesday that the court ruling had exposed a “complete failure of Sunak’s flagship policy and his judgment”. Addressing the new home secretary, James Cleverly – the eighth home secretary in eight years – Cooper said the government was “wasting time, wasting money, and letting the country down”.

As Cleverly attempted to defend the policy in parliament, Cooper alleged that he had previously, in private, described the policy as “batshit”. The home secretary failed to deny the claim, and stated on TV the following day that he didn’t remember “saying anything like that”.

Green MP Caroline Lucas described the policy as “utterly inhumane, grotesquely immoral and totally unworkable”. She pleaded with Sunak for an asylum policy that would treat people with “respect and dignity”.

In response to Sunak’s statement, Jessica Simor KC described the comments as “beyond idiotic”. Simor also called on Sunak to fire Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson, for saying government should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”. Former Downing Street chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, described the government’s response as “utterly depressing”, asking what had happened to the party that he devoted 30 years of his life to.

Apart from Sunak and his cunning plan B, no doubt we can expect the Brexiters to be ranting about “illegal” immigrants, woke lawyers and the ECHR for as long (or as short) as they remain in power. But no amount of ranting will return the millions in public money paid to Rwanda and government lawyers. No amount of ranting will reduce the numbers of asylum seekers risking life and limb in small boats in dangerous waters. No amount of ranting will save the government from election defeat

 

Another empty threat

In 1950, following WW2, the ECHR was drafted to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for the people of Europe. It protects citizens from, amongst other things, their own governments. So, it’s not hard to see why its removal might appeal to the man who thinks he’s running our country. While the government may threaten to pull out of the ECHR, it’s an empty threat. Even if it had the time available, such an action would unravel the Good Friday agreement and further alienate Britain in the eyes of the international community – just for starters.

While the country must sit back and wait for a different government with a different plan, we can only feel for those suffering as a result of the current one. With no safe asylum routes in place and a tragically slow asylum approval process, desperate people are being left in desperate situations by a desperate government.

Sunak’s latest cunning plan is just another terrible idea that’s doomed to failure. Rather like the government, the Tory party and the prime minister himself. Any court in the land would surely not hesitate to come to the same conclusion.

 

If the answer is David Cameron, what on earth was the question?

If the answer is David Cameron, what on earth was the question?

Nov 15, 2023 | Bylines, News

Cameron’s back in government, despite not being an elected MP – and despite austerity, Greensill and Brexit, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Just a few short (or tediously long) weeks ago, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared himself to be the man to “fundamentally change our country”. At the recent Conservative Party conference, Sunak aimed to convince his audience that he was the “change candidate” – the one to breathe new life into a very poorly party, and a very poorly country. Those claims now look increasingly ridiculous following his latest reshuffle, and the return of David Cameron to frontline politics.

Cameron’s back

Following the sacking of Home Secretary Suella Braverman (finally, and not for the first time) on Monday morning, James Cleverly was shuffled from the Foreign Office to the Home Office. His appointment as Home Secretary comes just 48 hours ahead of a Supreme Court decision on Wednesday regarding the government’s Rwanda deportation plans.

In his place, former PM David Cameron has been appointed foreign secretary, despite him not being a serving MP. In order to be able to take up a place in Cabinet, Cameron – who resigned as PM over Brexit following the 2016 referendum – has also received a life peerage.

It would seem that Sunak is willing to overlook Cameron’s previous poor judgement over Brexit, austerity and a lobbying Scandal involving Greensill and the pocketing of $10mn dollars. Perhaps, after everything that Braverman has put Sunak through while in office, Cameron looks a cosy companion by comparison.

Spoilt for choice, not!

When the answer to any question is David Cameron, then you know the country is in deep trouble. Bringing back the man largely responsible for the beginning – if not the end – of the destruction of the Tory party, is bad enough. Let alone the damage done to the country. Not that this would be of any concern to Sunak, who seems intent on doing all he can to make matters even worse.

What the decision does spell out clearly – to those in Westminster and in the country at large – is the complete lack of talent there is to choose from, either on the front or back benches.

According to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby, a former Cabinet minister said Cameron’s return was “a message to the House of Commons that we don’t have any MPs that the prime minister felt was good enough”. And these are the people making life-changing decisions and supposedly running our country.

Leader of the True and Fair Party, Gina Miller, said of Cameron’s appointment that it exposed “the vacuum of accountability at the heart of government”. Miller also pointed out that Cameron would “not even be able to answer questions in the House of Commons”. She called on Sunak to reset the rules to allow ministers from the House of Lords to be questioned in the Commons.

Green MP Caroline Lucas questioned whether we can now expect major foreign policy statements to be made in the unelected Lords, describing the prospect as an “unacceptable degrading of [a] key office of state”. She added, “appointing the reckless Brexit referendum instigator” as foreign secretary was a “democratic embarrassment”

 

Sense of entitlement

If Sunak believes Cameron to be the best person for the job, then he is seriously misjudging both the role of foreign secretary and the extent of Cameron’s talents. But then he’d be in good company with Cameron himself. According to LBC’s James O’Brien, author of How they broke Britain, Cameron not only “thinks he’s a genius” but thinks he’s “possessed of some unique set of skills”. His tenure at number 10, and his handling of Conservative Party divisions – Brexit in particular – would seem to prove otherwise.

Sharing his good fortune on X, formerly known as Twitter, Cameron identified a “daunting set of international challenges” that the country faces, “at this time of global change”. He said that while he “may have disagreed with some individual decisions” made by the PM, Sunak was a “strong and capable Prime Minister”. Clearly Cameron’s judgement has not improved any over his seven-year semi-retirement. Nor his sense of entitlement.

Cameron may not be expecting a full-blooded welcome back, but I wouldn’t put it past him. Whether the country has forgiven or forgotten his misdeeds – gambling away our futures for the sake of his party, ruining our trading relationship with our European neighbours, or walking away from the mess he created – remains to be seen.

One saving grace is that, if all goes as expected, Cameron’s role will be short-lived. His likely replacement, shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, put it best. Cameron “was a disastrous PM” and this is “a last gasp act of desperation from a government devoid of talent and ideas”.

What a shame we won’t get to see Cameron vs Lammy at the despatch boxes. But let’s be grateful for small mercies. Not seeing Cameron back in the Commons is definitely preferable to the alternative.

 

Suella Braverman ‘inflames tensions’ ahead of Remembrance weekend

Suella Braverman ‘inflames tensions’ ahead of Remembrance weekend

Nov 10, 2023 | Bylines, News

Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s latest comments suggesting the police ‘play favourites’ with protests draw stark criticism, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On Thursday 9 November, The Times published an article by the home secretary entitled, ‘Suella Braverman brands Met police biased over pro-Palestinian protest’. The much-criticised article came after days of media speculation regarding a planned march in London this weekend.

Initially, there were concerns that the march would interfere with the Remembrance Day service at the Cenotaph on Sunday. But it soon became clear, to any with their eyes and their hearts open, that the two events were on different days and in different parts of London, so one was unlikely to interfere with the other. The article seems to have been in direct response to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s comments a day earlier that there were insufficient grounds to ban this weekend’s march.

In her article, Braverman asks the question, “are some public displays so offensive that they deserve to be banned?” Clearly, she believes the answer to be yes, and that doesn’t apply just to marches. In fact, the list of things that the home secretary finds offensive is a long one, including, not least, the homeless and asylum seekers. What’s worse is she claims to speak on behalf of the “compassionate” British public.

According to the home secretary, the pro-Palestinian movement “has mobilised tens of thousands of angry demonstrators and marched them through London every weekend”. She refuted the claim that the marches were a “cry for help for Gaza” and even accused the march group’s organisers of having links to terrorist organisations, including Hamas. She again used the term “hate marchers”, adding that she did not “resile” from the term

 

Braverman: police ‘playing favourites’

Braverman suggested these events were problematic, not because of the “violence around the fringes” but because of “the highly offensive content of chants, posters and stickers”. She believes “there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protestors”, with the police favouring the left. A claim that Mr. Stop Brexit, Steve Bray, would no doubt dispute most vigorously. She suggested that aggressive right-wing protestors are met with a “stern response” from the police, while their left-wing counterparts are “largely ignored” when displaying the same behaviour. Senior former and serving officers agreed with her that there was a “double standard”, she claimed, though not enough for any of them to have been quoted directly, it would seem.

 

Strong criticism from Labour

Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, didn’t mince her words. She accused the home secretary of “attacking police impartiality” and “deliberately undermining respect for the police”. Braverman was “deliberately inflaming community tensions in the most dangerous of ways”, and was attacking the police at a time when she should be supporting them.

Cooper described Braverman’s comments as “highly irresponsible and dangerous”, and said that many former police chiefs were lining up to condemn her. She asked if the government “still believe in the operational independence of the police” and questioned whether the prime minister had endorsed the article. If he had done so, or was too weak to sack Braverman, then he had “given up”, and both the prime minister and the home secretary should go.

Chris Bryant described Suella Braverman as “a danger”, adding that her article “imperils good policing” and “inflames an already difficult situation”. He pointed out that only two Conservative MPs spoke in the House of Commons in defence of the home secretary, and only a handful were in attendance. He said not only was there no place for hate on our streets, but there was no place for hate in the Home Office either. The home secretary was trying to “command the police” and was “inciting hatred”.

Shadow Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, called the home secretary “out of control”, “utterly irresponsible” and “unhinged”. Cooper also critici

What did Downing Street know?

After much speculation on social media, regarding whether the prime minister had endorsed, or even seen, the Times article ahead of publication, Number 10 were forced to issue a statement. Downing Street had not signed off on the content, despite claims from Braverman’s aides to the contrary. Policing Minister, Chris Philps, when asked if Downing Street had approved the article said, “I’m afraid I don’t have any visibility on that at all”. No change there, then.

In fact, Number 10 had reviewed the content – even suggesting “major changes” – but it would appear those suggestions were ignored. The Downing Street response was then quickly followed by suggestions that Braverman was perhaps – not for the first time – in breach of the ministerial code. A Number 10 spokesperson confirmed that “the content was not agreed” and that the matter was being looked into. The ministerial code clearly states that the policy content and timing of all major press releases, interviews and appearances should be cleared by Number 10 “to ensure the effective coordination of cabinet business”.

No doubt there will be calls for Braverman’s resignation from the Home Office. Again. Even Sunak’s misguided predecessor had the temerity to fire the home secretary during her short reign in Number 10. Of course, it is possible, as many – including Cooper – have suggested, that this is exactly what Braverman wants, so she can openly campaign to be the next leader of the Conservatives/the next prime minister. Though its hard to see how that might look any different from what she’s doing right now.

The home secretary closed her article with, “the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder”. Perhaps, in the interests of free speech, democracy and tolerance, the police might like to start with the home secretary herself. Surely Braverman has done more to incite hatred, violence and division that any protestor on the streets of London.

Sunak’s first year as prime minister in 46 seconds

Sunak’s first year as prime minister in 46 seconds

Oct 27, 2023 | Bylines, News

Is a 46 second video of Rishi Sunak’s achievements in a year of being PM perhaps a bit too long? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes for Yorkshire Bylines.

Have you seen our prime minister’s latest puff piece, celebrating his first year in office? No? Then, boy are you in for a treat!

At (thankfully) just 46 seconds long, it is a run-through of everything that “we’ve achieved” in the year since Rishi Sunak became PM. The list of so-called achievements scrolls past so fast as to be practically unreadable. Which is, perhaps, the point.

Feedback

In the first 24 hours after posting on X, Sunak’s video collected almost four million views. Surprisingly, it also recorded almost three million likes. What was less surprising was the responses. Having scrolled through all of them (so you don’t have to), I only found one short message of support. The ridicule, however, was widespread.

Caroline Lucas drew attention to Sunak’s many failures on climate change, described by Sunak as a “new approach to net zero”. Others criticised Sunak for “gaslighting”, cried “shame on you”, called him a “clown”, or much worse, while others drew attention to his many failures or simply scoffed at his ridiculous claims.

Sunak’s so-called achievements

Amongst Sunak’s claims were a list of things the government have banned (XL bully dogs, nitrous oxide, strikes in school, protest), plus a list of spurious claims, such as record levels of NHS funding, falling crime and a million new homes. Funny but, despite extensive research, I can only find reference to a Sunak commitment, made in July, to build one million homes before the end of this parliament. Surely, had that goal been achieved, we’d have heard a lot about it, and no doubt had a special PM video celebrating the fact.

Many of Sunak’s so-called achievements haven’t even happened yet. His “long term decisions for a brighter future” included a “long-term NHS workforce plan”, “expanding childcare” and a “smoke free generation”. I’m not sure exactly how long Sunak thinks the Conservatives are going to remain in power, but it certainly isn’t long-term. His own stay in power might be even shorter, now his Conservative colleagues are free to submit letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee

The five priorities

When Sunak spoke of his five priorities in his New Year’s speech, he called on the British public to “trust” him. He claimed his five pledges would “deliver peace of mind — five foundations, on which to build a better future for our children and grandchildren”. Not only that, he was going to be “straining every sinew” in order to achieve his goals.

The first of those pledges – halving inflation – was expected to happen anyway over the following 12 months, with or without any government actions. As for the other four pledges, Sunak and his government seem to have made matters worse, rather than better.

The second and third pledges – growing the economy and reducing debt – are not going to plan. While there has been some recent improvement in the UK economy, the IMF are still predicting just 0.5% growth in 2023 – the second worst in the G7. As for reducing debt, the level of UK debt has actually risen to the highest levels in 60 years, and in June passed 100% of GDP for the first time since 1961.

 

Sunak’s fourth pledge – cutting waiting lists – for the NHS, has proved to be another epic failure. Just this month, the waiting list in England alone hit a record high of 7.75 million people awaiting treatment (as at the end of August). With further strikes likely in the medical sector thanks to the government’s intransigence on pay, this is only likely to get worse.

The final pledge – stopping the boats – has also failed miserably, with record numbers of desperate migrants risking their lives to cross the Channel. According to Migration Watch UK, the Home Office is expecting the numbers for 2023 to reach 85,000 by the end of the year. Not only would that set a new record high but is roughly equivalent to the total number of arrivals between 2018 and 2022. And all as a direct consequence of Brexit and this government’s policies.

In his video, the prime minister admits that “there’s so much more to do”. Whether he, or his government, are given the opportunity to do more good, or harm, seems increasingly unlikely. The video ends with the question “so what can a country achieve in 52 weeks?” and ends with the words “watch this space”. Well, we’ve been watching, and it seems that the only thing Sunak can celebrate after a year in office is outlasting his predecessor. I doubt there are many, except the delusional few, that honestly believe we can expect anything more from this PM, or this government. They’ve had 13 years, and the evidence of their damage is everywhere you look. But don’t expect to see that in any videos.

‘Hard man of Brexit’ Steve Baker changes his mind

‘Hard man of Brexit’ Steve Baker changes his mind

Oct 26, 2023 | Bylines, News

Steve Baker MP has declared that future referendums should require a super majority to be enacted – so why the sudden change of heart? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes for Yorkshire Bylines.

Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker has been sharing his thoughts on referendums with the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The self-proclaimed ‘hard man of Brexit’ told the assembly that the Brexit referendum “probably should have been a supermajority” requiring 60% voter support. That’s despite his having voted against an SNP amendment to the EU referendum bill in 2015 calling for just that. He added that it would not be advisable, in any future vote on Irish unification, to accept a “50% plus one” decision.

We’d have lost

Baker was a prominent figure in the Leave campaign in the run up to the Brexit referendum and an active ‘Brexit Spartan’ in its aftermath. Despite Theresa May’s hard red lines on Brexit, Baker voted against her deal three times, presumably because it wasn’t hard enough. He later told Newsnight that “holding those tigers by the tail”, between 2016 and 2019, had cost him his mental health. Much of the country felt the same way. Many of us still do.

Baker suggested that not having a supermajority threshold had caused the country serious political “trouble”. Indeed. But he failed to mention the government’s seeming willingness to stir up that division, to spread misinformation, and to fail to have any implementation plan whatsoever.

He admitted that had there been a supermajority in the Brexit referendum, “we’d have lost and we’d still be in (the EU)”. But at least “everybody would have abided by the result”, including the government, presumably. He added that it was “inconceivable” that we would have had “all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result”.

 

Referendum “met the threshold for illegality”

Baker failed, of course, to mention that those refusing to accept the result, politicians or no, were raising other important issues when “refusing to accept the result”. Such as the outrageous promises and outright lies of the Leave campaign. Or the fact that, according to Sir James Eadie QC, Theresa May’s legal counsel, the referendum “met the threshold for illegality”.

 

In my 2019 court case – ‘Wilson and others versus the Prime Minister’ – I challenged the government over the legality of the referendum result. With the referendum being merely advisory, rules that would have applied had the result been binding, did not apply.

Had the referendum been legally binding, parliament would have had “a statutory legal mechanism by which it would be annulled”, as they do with elections. So, the government, and Baker presumably, knew the referendum result to be illegal but decided to proceed regardless, and with no idea how to do so. While David Cameron had promised to honour the result, that was before the illegality was fully known or understood. And in any case, he didn’t hang around long enough to honour anything.

 

An ulterior motive?

I don’t doubt that Baker is sincere in hoping to ensure that, in the event of a vote on the unification of Ireland, a supermajority threshold be required. Not only would it give the result legitimacy, but it would make it easier for the public, and the politicians, to get behind the outcome. It might also make the unification of Ireland a more difficult goal to achieve – a factor that may be influencing Baker’s thinking.

Baker says that had 60% of the voting public decided to leave the EU in 2016, the road to Brexit, even with the Conservatives in charge, would have been smoother and the country less divided. Whether to ensure legitimacy or prevent division, there will be those arguing for a supermajority in the event of any future referendum on rejoining the EU. No doubt hard man Baker and his fellow Spartans will be amongst them.

But, even if the hard man of Brexit has now gone soft on democracy, it’s hard not to conclude that he has an ulterior motive – one that will ensure that his beloved Brexit is secure. He’s known all along that a supermajority is a much tougher threshold to achieve. Which is why he voted against it 2015.