‘Stop your whinging Scotland, drink your Buckfast’
‘YOU know, my dad owned a chain of newsagent’s so I can read headlines, thank you very much. And far too many have been too quick to say, ‘Oh, Priti please explain what’s going on in that Thatcherite head of yours with the lorry blockage in Kent?”
Just because I’m a Leave fanatic doesn’t mean I should have pre-thought plans to maintain movement. And who wants to eat salad at this time of year anyway?
As for the grilling I’ve been getting about schools re-opening? I can’t tell you about all pupils because, obviously, schools operate differently across the country. And I certainly can’t tell Nicola what to do. I fear she could be a bigger bully than me. (Laughs).
Don’t give me that disdainful look. Yes, the November inquiry deemed I’d breached the ministerial code again. But then ministerial codes are like the Enigma. They’re there to be broken! At least the last time I broke ministerial protocol I was clever enough to be tanking a lovely £1,000 an hour. I know there was an alleged conflict of interests; Home Secretary takes cash from global communications firm that supplies products and services to the UK Government. But that wasn’t the case at all. There is no conflict for me when cash is involved.
And the media love to take my comments out of context. Like the time I said that the economic impact of a no-deal Brexit on the
Sure, critics like to say I only got into politics because Dave had me fast-tracked into a safe seat
Republic of Ireland could encourage the EU to drop the backstop. Well, some people actually took that at face value.
And just because in one interview I repeatedly confused “counter-terrorism” with “terrorism” some label me
“Priti Vacant”. Easy mistake to make, Mister!
Sure, critics like to say I only got into politics because Dave had me fast-tracked into a safe seat, to widen the party demographic.
Well, that may be true, but I’ve always been an opportunist. They forget I was happy to work for a PR company with a contract with British American Tobacco and a remit to convince African kids to start puffin’ like lab beagles.
I wasn’t vague either at the time when I was up for capital punishment, and down on the idea of same-sex marriages. I’ve kicked out at Windrush and Extinction Rebellion.
And I was as clear as the space between Dominic Raab’s ears when I once said I wasn’t strictly in favour of the rule of law – which I suppose as Home Secretary is a bit like Craig Revel Horwood saying it’s ok for Strictly contestants to make up the moves as they go along. But we need a bit of freestyle thinking in this world, don’t we?
Sure, Theresa resigned me as International Development Secretary after the time I holidayed in Israel and, instead of taking little Freddie to the waterparks in Eilat, I took 14 off-the-book meetings with dignitaries such as Benjamin Netanyahu. But you can have fun in the Golan Heights too, you know.
But I’m back, under Boris, so to speak. And as protected as a white tiger. So stop your whinging Scotland and drink your Buckfast.”
attempting to deliver one, ought to concede that he was sincere in his claims to want a deal, believe one could be done, and – despite the disruption of the coronavirus pandemic – done without any extension of the timeframe.
None of that guarantees that the deal will be good for the UK, let alone as good as he will naturally attempt to claim.
The length of time available to Parliament to scrutinise it is inadequate, and there will be a good deal of grit in the nitty-gritty. In practical terms, however, there seems little doubt that it will gain the approval of the Commons.
Opposition politicians have given so much time to maintaining that a no-deal departure would be catastrophic that it will be difficult for them to reject this agreement, and the parliamentary arithmetic in the House of Commons means that, with their support or even abstention, the opposition of the Tories’ ERG wing (if it transpires) will prove irrelevant.
That is particularly so in the face of the headline aspects of the deal that the EU and the Prime Minister stressed: zero tariffs and quotas, and broad alignment on aviation, security, employment rights and climate targets. It was inevitable that the UK would have to remain generally in line with those if it were not to face serious economic differences with the EU.
But, to placate those whose declared priority was to leave the EU’S political ambit, there is the assurance that future divergence will be subject to independent adjudication. Those who wanted out of the ECJ’S jurisdiction, the Customs Union, the Single Market and “ever-closer union” have their aim.
That will disappoint those who prized those aims and institutions but, for good or ill, the referendum result of four-and-a-half years ago has now been substantially delivered.
Many may doubt that what now follows will be all that was promised and regret the change but, as Ms von der Leyen suggested, while quoting TS Eliot, it is both an end and a beginning.