The current imbroglio concerning the attempts by Prime Minister Teresa May to secure passage of a Brexit deal through the House of Commons has raised a number of important issues and phenomena.  One of these most intriguing of these issues is the de facto break down of the authority of executive authority of the cabinet over the legislature. 

Traditionally party discipline has prevailed whereby the backbench falls in behind the prime minister and his or her cabinet.  Even during periods of minority government, such as between 1974 and 1979, party discipline still prevailed in the House of Commons so that there was still relatively stable government. 

This current 2019 malaise encompasses not only the ruling Conservative Party but also the opposition Labour Party where the majority of its MPs are hostile to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn due to his far left ideology.  In the case of the Conservative Party the breakdown of party discipline is due to the division of this party into three loose camps when it comes to Brexit.

These three loose camps can be identified as: 1/hardline Brexiters, 2/ Remainers and 3/pro-deal Brexiters led by Prime Minister May.  The Brexiters and the Remainers within the Tory Party are ironically united in their belief that by their both scuttling a deal being done on Brexit that they can achieve their respective and opposing objectives.

The sad situation will be that unless a revamped version of Prime Minister May’s Brexit deal is passed by the House of Commons then the hardline Brexiters will prevail at the cost of Britain losing access the European Union (EU) trading bloc.  The cost in jobs which will be lost and diminished British Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of this development will be immense so as to pave the way for the election of a hard-left Corbyn government.   

Ironically it has been Jeremy Corbyn who has offered a potential escape clause or life-line to the May government by advocating that a customs union be maintained by Britain with the EU.  Mr. Corbyn has so far refused to identify as to which camp he belongs - the Brexit camp or the Remain camp.  Instead the British Opposition Leader has sought to place himself in a compromise position so as to avoid taking a stand while encouraging division among the Tories.

Regardless of how and why Jeremy Corbyn has formulated his stance, his policy position of reaching a customs union with the EU actually offers Britain the best option of maintaining socio-economic cohesion.  In effect both Prime Minister May and Opposition Leader Corbyn are in the Remain camp.

Consequently, instead of primarily focusing on re-uniting the Tory Party over Brexit, Prime Minister May should reach out to the Opposition Leader to take him up on his proposal that a customs union be reached by Britain with the EU.  Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn could be a statesman by offering Labour Party support to the government for such a customs union. 

Tragically, the current situation is that both the prime minister and the opposition leader are now accusing the other of acting in bad faith so as to blame the other should a ‘No Deal’ Brexit ensue.  However, history will blame these two leaders – Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn- for failing to reach an agreement ensuring a customs union and a frictionless border between Britain and the EU. 

Why A Blame Government Must be Avoided

These two leaders will be blamed because a deal between them was (and still is) within their grasp to have saved Britain from socio-economic catastrophe should this nation be excluded from access to the EU common market. 

Furthermore, the House of Commons on an inter-party basis can still ensure that an agreement with the EU is passed ensuring a customs union and a frictionless border should the respective leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties fail to grasp the nettle. 

President Donald J Trump has an artistic temperament in that what he visualizes he translates into reality.  This artistic streak of the president was discussed by him on page one of a book he wrote entitled Trump The Art of the Deal (1987 Arrow Books).  As President Trump stated in this book his artistry is in making deals.

Possibly chapter two is the most important part of the Art of the Deal because the operating principles and distinctive approaches of President Trump are detailed.  The vital significance of this chapter (Trump Cards: The Elements of the Deal) is such that it is probable that some of these elements of President Trump’s approach to deal making were utilized by him to win the presidency in 2016. 

One of the key elements discussed by President Trump in chapter two is to ‘Think Big’.  This element essentially entails pursuing an objective which President Trump equated to almost being ‘a controlled neurosis’.  Donald Trump did think big as he ran for United States president despite having no prior electoral history nor possessing an established political base.

Another very important element which President Trump discusses in The Art of the Deal which he applied to win the presidency was entitled to ‘Protect the Downside and the Upside Will Take Care of Itself’.  This particular element was brilliantly applied by the Trump campaign team in 2016 as their focus was on the states which had the necessary electoral votes.  Consequently even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of over three million the Electoral College votes still fell Donald Trump’s way. 

The 2016 US presidential election campaign of Donald Trump was also noteworthy for its flexibility.  This particular quality clearly aligns with the element (or ‘Trump Card’) of ‘Maximize Your Options’.  Other ‘Trump Cards’ which were applied by the Trump campaign in the 2016 presidential election were to ‘Use Your Leverage’ and to ‘Get the Word Out’.  The rallies and populist campaign messages that the Trump campaign got out in 2016 were key determinants in Donald Trump engaging with his political base (thereby bypassing established political networks) to win both the Republican Party presidential nomination and ultimately the presidency. 

A Trump Card of deal making which was transferred to the 2016 Trump presidential campaign was that of ‘Fight Back’.  President Trump discussed in his 1987 book that if you fight for what you believe in then “things usually work out for the best in the end’ even if people are alienated along the way. 

Also discussed in the 1987 book was the Trump Card of to ‘Deliver the Goods’.  This particular Trump Card did not have to be applied in the 2016 campaign but is nevertheless an indicator that core election promises, such as building a wall (or enhanced barrier) along the American-Mexican border, will be relentlessly pursued by President Trump. 

The other elements of The Deal which are probably not transferable to political campaigns or governance are: ‘Enhance Your Location’, ‘Have Fun’ and ‘Contain the Costs’.  Nevertheless, with regard to containing the costs, the Trump 2016 campaign was very cost effective to the point of being brilliantly frugal.

The application of Trump Cards was such that had Hillary Clinton in 2016 ran against a presidential candidate such as former Florida governor, Jeb Bush or Senator Marco Rubio then she probably would have won the presidency due to accepted campaign orthodoxies been applied.

The continuing incredulity felt by the political elite that Donald Trump won the presidency has helped drive congressional probes into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign.  However, regardless of the impact of possible Moscow meddling in the 2016 American presidential election, the application of Trump Cards must be taken into account to evaluate how and why Donald J Trump won the 2016 presidential election. 

The relevant question is will President Trump continue to apply the operating principles associated with the Trump Cards to public policy, particularly with regard to the colossal crisis in Syria? 

                                                                                                                                        Applying the Trump Cards to Syria

The recent announcement of the intention to withdraw two thousand American military personnel from Syria is possibly an application of the Trump Card of protecting the downside so that the upside will take care of itself.  For President Trump the policy of withdrawing US troops is probably in keeping with the process of ceding American interests in Syria to Turkey.  For Ankara along with Russia and republican Iran are the three main powers with military stakes in Syria.

With the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad on the brink of launching a military campaign to re-take Idlib Province which is the remaining substantial territory held by the rebels, now is the time for a ‘win-win’ negotiated political settlement.  To complicate matters the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) or Syrian Democratic Forces are aligned with the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK).  The FSA are predominately Sunni Muslim and have the backing of the Turkish government.  However, the FSA is also aligned to the PKK even though the Turkish government is determined to destroy that armed Kurdish political party which once supported the Baathist regime in Damascus. 

Due to President Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw its troops from Syria the PKK is now looking to re-align with the Baathist regime in order to gain protection.  Such a bizarre turn of events creates the threat whereby the Assad regime can retake Idlib Province and in so doing finally convert Syria into a launching pad for republican Iran to attack Israel thereby threatening an all out war in the Middle East with nuclear weapons! 

Such an Iranian attack or possible invasion of Israel (which is nuclear armed) will only be viable if Tehran acquires nuclear weapons.  Because of strong emotional ties between Israel and the United States no Washington administration (with the possible exception of one led by Bernie Sanders) whether Republican or Democrat will allow Israel to be destroyed.  Neither will the United States allow republican Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

As the United States’ entry into World War I in 1917 followed the sinking of the Lusitania ship, America’s entry into World War II followed the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941 and the war on terror followed Al-Qaeda’s 2001 terrorist attacks on American home soil, indicates that if that there is a belief that American national security is threatened then the US will go to war. 

A key American national interest is to ensure the survival of Israel.  President Richard Nixon in October 1973 marvelled at the way in which so-called doves in Congress who were leading the way to fatally cut military aid to South Vietnam rallied to Israel’s defence with the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War.

                                                                                                                                                          Applying Kierkegaard’s Trump Card

To prevent the outbreak of a contemporary twenty first century Yom Kippur War with republican Iran at the forefront it is necessary at this vital juncture to reach a political settlement in Syria before there is an offensive by the Baathist regime to conquer Idlib province.  At a time of such urgency the insight of the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard is apt: life must be understood backwards but lived forward.  Therefore to avoid a future catastrophic war between the USA and republican Iran a political deal must be reached in Syria.

Although Bashar Assad has almost won the Syrian Civil War he is still politically and militarily dependent upon Russia and republican Iran.  These two nations in conjunction with Turkey are in a position to prevent the Baathist regime from attacking Idlib Province so that a political settlement in Syria can be reached.

A political settlement in Syria can be reached by negotiating the introduction of a parliamentary system of government where a government must be formed by a two-thirds majority so as to protect the interests of minority communities such as the Alawites, Shiite Muslims and Christians.  These aforementioned communities will inevitably vote for the Baathist Party if free and internationally supervised national elections occur in Syria as a result of a political settlement being reached.  Syria’s displaced Sunni majority will probably vote for a Muslim Brotherhood backed party which will be linked to Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party. 

The election of a multi-communal government in Damascus will be integral to achieving the outcome in which Syria will become a neutral nation in the world’s most dangerous area.  The existence of a neutral Syria at the cross roads of the Middle East will be essential so as to prevent the outbreak of a future wider war in that region. 

                                                                                                                                           Why the Ballot Must Trump the Bullet

It would be naive to believe that foreign powers would not continue to interfere in Syria if that nation were to become a fragile democracy.  However, any future vying for influence in Syria will be confined to institutionalised political processes as is the emerging pattern in contemporary Iraq due to the statesmanship of Ayatollah Sistani.

The Iranian born Ayatollah Sistani has both promoted democracy and protected the national interest of his adopted nation of Iraq since the end of the Baathist regime in Baghdad in May 2003.  By exercising strong leadership over Iraq’s majority Shiite community Ayatollah Sistani has shown that democratic processes (such as the adoption of a federal system in 2009) can be facilitated despite a very difficult and highly dangerous environment. 

The interests of Iraq’s Kurdish community have been advanced by their political leaders entering into an alliance with the Shiite majority to help ensure that violent attacks on democracy have ultimately not succeeded.  Similarly, Syria’s Kurdish community can enter into a future strategic alliance with that nation’s Sunni majority to ensure that their interests are accommodated within a federal Syria in accordance with the successful Iraqi model thereby allaying Turkish concerns.  In keeping with President Trump’s objective of ensuring that deal making facilitates excellence let Syria’s sectarian based political parties pre-select the most talented candidates so that this nation can have one of the best governments so as to secure regional and therefore global peace. 

While the above scenarios may seem to be exercises in wish fulfilment, Ayatollah Sistani’s conciliatory spiritual leadership in Iraq shows that the impossible can be achieved.  Indeed having a maverick in the White House such as President Trump may be what is needed for Syria to achieve the impossible. 

Britain will inevitably exit (‘Brexit’) the European Union (EU) in late March 2019.  The socio-economic cost of a hard Brexit will be detrimentally high because the British Isles will be excluded from the single European market.  The consequent decline in British living standards will be so detrimental that the election of Jeremy Corbyn Labour government will become a viable option. 

Under a Corbyn government Britain will transition to a politically correct dictatorship in which Ulster is unilaterally abandoned to Sinn Fein and Scotland is encouraged to secede.  The consequent English/Welsh rump state will become a dictatorship which is economically dependent on a mercantilist People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

A prelude to establishing such a British republican dictatorship will be to introduce a written constitution in which royal governmental prerogatives are transferred to the parliamentary speaker as occurred in *Sweden in 1975.  This abolition of royal prerogatives will only be a stop-gap before the British monarchy is entirely abolished along with the socio-political freedoms which the conventions of a constitutional monarchy facilitate and guarantee. 

(*Sweden has neither transitioned to a dictatorship nor a republic due to the respective democratic orientation of the Swedish Social Democratic Party and the continuing popularity of the Swedish royal family.  It is questionable as to whether Corbyn’s Marxist supporters within the Labour Party have a similar commitment to democracy and constitutional monarchy). 

Preventative Maintenance via a Soft Brexit

To avoid this political horror scenario of a Corbyn government Britain needs a soft Brexit by which this nation remains within the EU’s single market.  It is therefore ironic that some of the advocates of a hard Brexit are Euro-sceptics within the Conservative Party.  Do these Eurosceptic Tories not realise that the essence of a market economy as envisaged by the great Scottish eighteenth century moral philosopher Adam Smith depends upon producers having access to markets in accordance with the principles of supply and demand? 

Margaret Thatcher understood that prosperity could not be achieved unless Britain had access to the single market of continental Europe.  For this reason Margaret Thatcher in the mid-1970s opposed the leader of the Labour Party’s hard left Tony Benn (to whom Corbyn is the philosophical and ideological successor) by advocating that Britain join the then European Economic Community (EEC).  

The later hostility of the late 1980s of Britain’s first female prime minister toward the EU was based upon this entity evolving into a supra state in which power is transferred to unelected Brussels bureaucrats at the expence of British democracy.  This Thaterchist antipathy toward the emergence of a nascent European supra state was not surprising because Britain had never been subjected to Napoleonic rule of the early nineteenth century.  The juridical, legal and cultural impacts of this Napoleonic legacy have been so profound and enduring for continental Europe that Britain will always find it challenging to wholeheartedly integrate with the EU. 

Therefore a soft-Brexit offers Britain the best of both worlds when it comes to the question of maintaining economic and political connections with continental Europe.  This is because Britain by continuing to belong to a single European market (in which there is a free flow of people between continental Europe and the British Isles) will remain within the EU power house.   At the same time by Britain not formally remaining within the EU will be immune from Brussels bureaucrats attempting to usurp the functions of British courts and legislatures. 

Let the British People Decide Between Either Win-Win or a Lose-Lose Outcome

It should be appreciated that a soft Brexit offers Britain a ‘win-win’ scenario of both belonging to a single European market while still retaining its social, political and economic independence.   British parliamentarians can still vote in favour for a soft Brexit but with the escape clause that there be a referendum to approve Prime Minister Theresa May’s ‘win-win’ agreement with the EU. 

Holding another referendum will not violate the spirit of the 2016 vote in favour of ‘leave’.  This will be because the decision for Britain to depart from the EU will not be challenged.  Rather the decision to be put to the British people will be between a soft and hard Brexit which respectively correlates with deciding between a ‘win-win’ outcome or a ‘lose-lose’ scenario. 

Fidel Castro’s death in late 2016 has focused attention on the former Cuban dictator’s career. Castro’s success in establishing and maintaining a Communist dictatorship 90 miles off the coast of the United States was a remarkable achievement. Unfortunately, this and associated successes were achieved at the Cuban people’s expense. By examining the history of the proceeding Batista regime, a perspective will hopefully emerge which illustrates how Castro deceived the Cuban people and the world at large to establish a cruel and unnecessary totalitarian dictatorship.