Brexit Exit – What’s Ahead?
The Conversation asks What kind of Brexit Will Britain Now ‘Get Done’.
Beyond his signature policy on Brexit, it is difficult to say with certainty what Johnson will offer. More than any other recent politician, Johnson’s rise to the top of British politics was fuelled by personal ambition, not ideology. His gaffes, his colourful (sometimes insensitive) language and his chaotic personal life have all drawn attention.
Johnson’s surfeit of ambition has also led to him being seen as untrustworthy and unprincipled, and regularly denounced by opponents as a liar.
Now that he is back in office with a majority, Johnson will have the numbers in parliament to pursue his own policy direction. The details of that direction are unclear, with few clues available in the Conservatives’ safety-first manifesto.
“Get Brexit done” gave Johnson a mission, a goal to achieve, a rallying cry to mobilise supporters to win first the Tory leadership and then the general election. But with the premiership secured and Brexit done, what does Johnson want to happen next?
Die in a Ditch, Yet Again
The New York Times says “Few expect the negotiations on the country’s future trade and security relationship with the bloc to be quick or easy.”
Will this be the Mr. Johnson who vowed once “to die in a ditch” or the Mr. Johnson who reached his draft Brexit deal with Brussels last October by abandoning his red lines over Northern Ireland?
Mr. Johnson may favor a hard deadline, but that will put Britain, which will soon be negotiating from outside rather than inside the European Union, into a weaker position, argued Fabian Zuleeg, head of the European Policy Center, a research institution based in Brussels. The risk is that a quick trade negotiation, considered almost a contradiction in terms by trade experts, could fail, bringing Britain and Brussels back to the prospect of a “no deal” Brexit.
Consensus Nonsense
Those articles represent the overwhelming consensus nonsense.
Nigel Farage, and others in the Brexit Party also fear the worst.
The Brexit party expects Johnson will give up fishing rights and keep the UK in a customs Union for a decade.
I suggest there are two governing political rules that negate both of those ideas.
Mish’s Two Rules of Politics
- Politicians are liars and cannot be trusted.
- Politicians will actually do what they say if they believe it is in their best interest to do so.
Those two rules seem contradictory, but the key idea is rule two trumps rule one.
Let’s apply those rules in a number of areas.
Fishing Policy
No doubt the EU will want to include fishing rights in the negotiations. Farage knows this and he is suspicious. He shouldn’t be.
Why? It’s clear rule two applies.
Why does rule two apply? Scotland
The SNP wants to break the UK and join the EU. But Scotland also wants control over fishing policy, something the EU would never grant.
As long as Johnson does not give up fishing rights, he can drive a huge wedge right through Nicola Sturgeon’s platform.
Conclusion: There is no way in hell Johnson will give up fishing rights.
Customs Union Extension
Johnson said he will reach a deal with the EU in a year. That’s ambitious but possible.
The Brexit Party and others will point to Johnson throwing DUP under the bus and “die in a ditch”.
Ho. Hum.
It was to Johnson’s advantage to lie on those. So he did. Rule 1 applied.
But now rule 2 applies.
Perhaps Johnson goes for some small 3- to 6-month extension, but outside of that it would be politically damaging to reverse course.
So, he won’t.
Trade Deal
Fabian Zuleeg, head of the European Policy Center, fears a “no deal” Brexit.
That’s absurd because we are 100% guaranteed to have a deal. But let’s assume he means that further negotiations collapse and there is not even a basic WTO agreement.
That is what Farage wants but no one else.
In this case, rule 2 applies. Expect both the UK and EU to act in their best interests. There will be red lines, but it is in the interests of both sides to reach a deal.
Ironically, it is likely to be the EU, not Johnson breaking the most positions.
Johnson may have to give in on some freedom of movement issues, but if so, I suspect whatever he negotiates to be in the UK’s best interests.
Deal In 12 Months?
Yes, or 16, or 18. What does it matter?
The WTO allows for “temporary” deals with up to 10 years to finalize them.
So, no, there will not be a final deal in 18 months. So what? There will be a basic deal in that time frame, and possibly within a year.
And as long as Johnson does not extend the customs union beyond 3 months, he will have fulfilled his mission even if some nitpickers call him a liar for it.
There may be a couple of small points Farage will moan about but it won’t be anything major on fishing policy, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), or a long-term customs union extension.
What About Ireland?
Johnson was asked in one of the debates if the union was more important than Brexit.
I was surprised by the speed of his lie. He instantaneously replied something along the lines of “absolutely”.
What a lie.
Political forces are now in play for the unification of Ireland. The deal that Johnson worked out with Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s Taoiseach (Prime Minister), guaranteed further pressure in Irish unification.
What happened?
- Johnson made Varadkar happy enough for the Taoiseach to back Johnson’s deal.
- In turn, the EU did not want to throw Ireland under the bus.
Rule one applied. It was in Johnson’s best interest to lie. So he did. The key point however, is point number two.
July 10 Flashback
I made a statement many times regarding “the bus”, and most people thought I was nuts.
For one key example, please recall my July 10 post Today’s Brexit Non-News: The “Precious” Irish Backstop Must be Defended.
“Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President candidate, says she will not reopen Brexit talks.“
I commented “The Guardian story is either non-news or fake news.”
Simply put, I accurately called the headline story a lie. I was proven correct.
Here were the reasons I listed the EU would negotiate (emphasis now added).
- Ireland will be in a world of hurt. The estimated first-year to Irish GDP is 4.1%. It would be unlike the EU to purposely throw another EU member under the bus.
- European exports to the UK will crash.
- Germany is already smarting from a global slowdown. Merkel is no longer call the shots, but she is open to talks.
- If the EU will not budge at all, Johnson may apply more pressure by saying he will not even pay the breakup fee. That extra money the EU desperately needs for its budget or it will have to raise taxes or cut expense.
Saying vs Doing (What I said then)
We know what politicians say they will do, but we do not know what they will really do when the time comes. The EU never believed May would walk. In about one month the EU is likely to find out Johnson really intends to walk. At that point, the ballgame changes.
Ballgame Changed
Despite enormous pressure from UK parliament Remainers, Johnson managed to change the ballgame.
Very few believed he would succeed. I was one of those few.
It came down to one thing: It would be unlike the EU to purposely throw another EU member under the bus.
Once Johnson was willing to throw DUP under the bus, the ballgame changed for the EU as well.
Lies Exposed
- EU will not reopen the Withdrawal Agreement.
- EU will no reopen the Political Declaration.
- Johnson: The Union is more important than Brexit.
Proper Application of the Rules
To figure out what is most likely from here, just apply my rules.
- Politicians are liars and cannot be trusted.
- Politicians will actually do what they say if they believe it is in their best interest to do so.
The first step in figuring out what politicians are most likely to do, is to figure out if they really believe what they say is in their best interest.
If you conclude otherwise, then by all means, fall back on rule number one.
Sometimes such analysis is difficult. In this case, I believe it’s pretty easy, especially regarding fishing rights.
Another Simple Rule
We are where we a based on another simple rule: “The EU will not purposely throw another EU member under the bus.”
The EU has many rules, but it will bend or break them as necessary to accommodate that rule if possible.
With that in mind, note that Germany will suffer the most if the UK decides to walk.
Thus, I fully expect the EU to accommodate Germany in the trade discussions. The most likely way is a basic agreement within a year or so that all sides can live with.
Both sides want to put Brexit aside as quickly as possible. So, they will.
It cannot be totally one-sided so Johnson will have to give in on some minor face-saving points.
See how easy this is? Just apply the rules.
The hard part, of course, is figuring out what the rules are. Hopefully, this post helps.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
ZERO HEDGE posts.
“No Deal” Brexit ever closer…
The NI-only backstop doesn’t count as a “reopening of the WA”. The reason for this is simply – that this variant was available all along, and rejected in London as clearly preparing Northern Ireland for ejection from the Union. Johnson didn’t have to do anything to “persuade” Varadkar of this version of the deal, because annexing Northern Ireland was in Dublin’s plans all along. This article is just plain wrong.
The Tory majority is spectacular but it does not mean that Johnson can do anything he wants. Actually, he is in a similar situation to the earlier May government. Trapped in the middle. If he goes for a soft trade deal, then Farage will try to come back again. If he goes for hard divergence, that can reanimate the Lab-Lib opposition. And none of these are really good against the SNP.
My hunch is that Johnson will soften his EU trade position. Farage is not an immediate threat now. Meanwhile, Boris can be really hard against Scottish and Irish separatists. It won’t actually work against them but it can be a good sideshow for a while.
Scottish yes, Irish no, because the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 allows the Irish Republic an “advisory role” in Ulster’s governance, and the GFA also gave the residents of Northern Ireland the right to call an Irish unification referendum at any time. This agreement has been in place 21 years now, Johnson would have nothing to say about it, could not have without looking a fool.
The details are crucial. There is a hole in almost every agreement if you want to find it.
Of course, it is just speculation. But it seems risky to let the Irish go if his Brexit deal is the trigger. Scotland would be even harder to handle if the union is weakened. I really don’t know how much is the value of the union to English and Welsh Tory voters though.
I don’t think Farage can do anything. His “Reform Party” will go nowhere.
Perhaps you are right. It will be certainly a new situation. Maybe a simple anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim party has better chance to rise next time. It is not a coincident that UKIP went that way after Farage.
We desperately need an anti-immigration party, or a white identity party – and also a party that supports policies to encourage an ethnic minority outflow. We will be in the minority in our country otherwise. I recommend confining citizenship to people of British descent (mediaeval British descent) and closing benefits and public-sector employment to all others. Many ethnic minority people, no longer being able to suck the teat, would just leave.
Yeah, that kind of thing… A party with this agenda can be able to resist the Tories’ hijack policy. The more difficult part is to build up significant upport but the general societal crisis can help with that.
@djwebb1969 Again it will never happen in your lifetime. More likely you will get deported out of your own country.
There is really just one rule: Politicians will do whatever they think is in the best interests of their career (which may or may not align with the interests of their nations). If telling the truth is the best way for politicians to help their careers, they will do that. If lying is a more effective means to this end they will do that.
Simple.
And your point is?
WEll, my point is that up to the 2016 referendum which “REMAIN” was proclaimed to win by a landslide (and that´s why Cameron decided to go for it) nobody ever thought it possible for the UK to leave the EU.
The same might go for Scotland.
That´s important enough, I guess.
You agree ?
Wee Nippy is talking rubbish. A 2nd Indy ref has to be approved by UK Parliament.
So BoJo literally can do the opposite of what she is squealing about
This is the best Brexit coverage anywhere. And the comments are substantive too. Thanks Mish…
Only one rule is necessary – who carries the can for negative economic effects ?
Despite all the naysayers the UK won’t be badly hit and even if there is a little bit of pain, it will coincide with a global economic wobble that will act as good cover.
Meanwhile, German and Dutch economic performance will take a massive hit and the entire EU will be convulsed by the loss of revenue from it’s second biggest net contributor. Varadker will also be found naked if there is any realistic prospect of a WTO settlement hitting Eire and the ball-ache of integrating Northern Island (increasing the paltry 5M population by a third) is the last thing he can handle.
Even if it was all paid at once (it won’t be) the “divorce settlement” is only 3 years of contributions. Before the French farmers, plus the Poles, Spaniards and Irish start to feel the cold of funds drying up the Eurocrats will be paying us to do a trade deal.
.
I’ll believe Brexit when I see it. Those delays are also a method to postpone, potentially to oblivion.
Complete Silliness
1: Hard Borders
2: Loss of Fishing rights
3: Adoption of Euro
4: Eurozone Austerity Rules
People cannot Think
I agree Mish, many many times people just cannot think.
But not thinking doesn´t disqualify for them voting.
So politicians take advantage and, for example, may have Scotland voted out of the UK.
Up to the 2016 referendum which “REMAIN” was proclaimed to win by a landslide (and that´s why Cameron decided to go for it) nobody ever thought it possible for the UK to leave the EU.
The same might go for Scotland.
Really insightful thinking. Clarity with heft and scope. Thanks. Great blog.
Regarding Prime Minister Johnson’s personal stakes going forward, and I think it is time to stop looking back with the Get Brexit Done pre-election mindset because that is over, Johnson is now PM in his own right and no longer a caretaker of the May government, everything changed on the 12th, CNBC actually has a pretty good opinion piece about him:
Boris Johnson will make history if he can save the UK from division and achieve these 5 goals by Fredrick Kempe
I cannot add to this as opinion, but it has many seeds of thought in it that are when taken as a whole an admission that the EU is in a trap. That Johnson really holds all the cards when it comes to negotiations, and I see that as true because the EU would have to hurt itself in order to hurt him and the UK.
I think that Johnson would like to see the Union held together but that he sees that as secondary to transforming England which is his number one priority, if the Union were to break up then the blame for that would squarely land on the Scots not on Johnson. It will be seen as their disloyalty to the crown in favor of the “free stuff” membership of the EU, rather than as Johnson sacrificing the UK for his own fame and goals.
Ireland has always been underestimated as the linchpin to all that is going on here. On the 12th we saw a vote in Ulster that once and for all shows that the Unionists are no longer the majority there. It is now, like it or not, inevitable that the island of Ireland will be unified under the Irish flag for the first time in 900 years. Both Varadkar and Johnson see this inevitability and Varadkar in particular wants to have his name on that historic event, without the reopening of old wounds and sectarian violence. So, he is willing to let that process take it’s time and for the reality to sink in for the Ulster Unionists.
If Ireland reunifies then the entire issue of the border goes away. Indeed it also means a breakup of the UK in losing Ulster, but there are many in Whitehall that would see it as letting go of an ancient albatross around their necks. The remaking of the UK, (really England, and really REALLY London) into the new Singapore with London as the center of world finance, will necessarily mean the shedding of Ulster, and if need be Scotland as well.
I was watching some Youtube vids done in NI over the last few days, there are a few in Ulster that are crying in pain and defiance about what they see as Britain’s dumping of the province, but they also see the inevitability of it. And the senselessness of rekindled violence because they are outnumbered and have been ditched by their own parent nation that they now realize has clearly decided to sacrifice them.
Many of those Unionists in Ulster want to remain part of the UK, but they also want to be part of the EU and now they cannot have both. Most of those Unionists also say they do not want to be part of Ireland officially but do consider themselves Irish, and again they cannot have both. Demographically the Catholic vote now outnumbers the Protestant. And absolutely everyone in NI wants no hard border.
To those who commented at Youtube their inconsistent and mutually exclusive desires and who fear reunification with Ireland I pointed out a couple of things, one being that Ireland is no longer the Pope kissing Catholic nation stuck in the past but a modern secular state that would do as much or more to recognize and protect the rights of the minority in the north as the UK would ever do. Also, that there are 1.4 million voters in Ulster and that is a small minority of the vote in the UK with it’s 67 million people, but, it would be well over one third of the vote total of a newly unified Ireland and they are missing a huge opportunity to remake Ireland in the image they want to see. They are projecting their current powerlessness inside the UK onto a unified Ireland where they fear they would lose their identity and protection when exactly the opposite is true, they have no voice in Britain but would be a huge influence inside Ireland, even rule it with the right coalition.
All those that think Johnson is playing a weak hand and is bluffing, December 12 proved you wrong. It is the EU with a weak hand and who will inevitably be seen as bluffing. The EU is cracking and faced with huge geopolitical stresses it just is not equipped to deal with, their approach to Russia for example is one of appeasement and accommodation in order to keep resources being fed to the German industrial maw. France is reeling and with Britain gone is the next government within the bloc to say forcefully that things in the EU must change. And Macron will also not be bluffing. Frankly I am surprised they did not go first.
So, when the U.K. wants to break away form Europe they are plucky little heroes in your eyes, but if the Scots want to do it they are “disloyal”.
Got it.
Try explaining that loudly on a street corner on a Saturday evening in Sauchiehall St., that is an ass-whipping I’d pay to watch.
All sounds very tectonic to me, a form of political geology maybe. I don’t know much about Scottish loyalty to Britain, but you are not talking independence here, you are talking of switching loyalty to EU, or in the absurd suggesting EU is interested in Scotland gaining independence outside of EU. Why confuse what is at play ?
I am not the one suggesting that Scotland may leave the union and apply for EU membership, which is a group of allegedly independent nations within a cooperative framework but is really just giving up one’s sovereignty to the ECB and bureaucrats in Brussels. That is the leader of the SNP which is by far the largest party in Scotland. And if you know anything about tectonics you know that it only appears to be extreme long-term slo-mo movement, but that movement is usually noticed as the violent release of ancient stresses that have built up over time that get suddenly relieved in catestrophic upheavals called earthquakes. NOBODY least of all Scotland has implied here that the Scots would seek independence outside the EU but they do know that in order to be in the EU they would have to first leave the UK. That is a big risk in that if they leave the UK and then are rejected by the EU they will be independent with no more sugar daddies to pay for their socialism. Who knows, maybe Trump will make a pitch for them, I mean they do have some nice golf courses that will be going cheap if they end up stranded without a sponsor. 51st state anyone?
Before Nicola Sturgeon presses for a new referendum on leaving the UK she will have to have an ironclad agreement with the EU to allow accession to the EU, in the meanwhile she has to keep the fires of revolt banked but not smothered. That is a tricky thing to pull off over time, the fires of indignation burn fast and hot, burn out the same way. So I expect we will know sooner rather than later. If she bangs the drums of leaving in the first half of 2020 we will know it is because the EU accepts in principal Scotland’s admission. And the only reason I think the EU would do that is to stick it to Boris, but do not underestimate the power of revenge as a motive.
Revenge no, divide and conquer is fully part of EU assimilation, a reductive process that levels under EU authority. I just wonder if many Scots have that much spite towards UK to cut off their own noses, would be sad if so. 🙁
Anda, remember that Mario Draghi was the head of the ECB and now just in time for Brexit the ECB is under new management with Legarde, she was the head of an American law firm, head of the IMF, and now head of the ECB which is the real power in the EU. The Scots are in for a major shock if they think they can leave the UK for the EU unless they convince Legarde of their worthiness. Unlike the eastern bloc nations that are joining Scotland is not terribly strategic. It might have been had they dedicated shares in the North Sea Oil but by the time the UK and Scotland worked out a deal post Union the oil would be pretty depleted.
This was touched upon in one of Mish’s articles a couple of days ago. Why should the EU be interested in Scotland? One simple word … Faslane. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever the SNP will do a complete 180 about being a nuclear free country, just so long as they are French (sorry, EU) nuclear submarines and missiles and not English (sorry, British) nuclear submarines and missiles. I really think they are THAT treacherous.
No, you have conflated a number of false assumptions into something they most certainly are not. For one thing Scotland is and has been an integral part of the UK since 1707 and had a deep relationship, sometimes adversarial, prior to that. Jilting that deep and abiding union that includes a shared monetary system and a monarch is WAY WAY different from the PARTIAL union UK had with the fledgling and broken EU. You can compare them but try not to feel bad when everyone laughs at you.
UK owed little to no loyalty to the weak and floundering yet monstrously overbearing continent and it’s sick little confederacy that is run by the head of the ECB in Frankfurt. It was a union that was never even consummated as the British never adopted the euro or gave up it’s own central bank and that really was the reason the EU was trying to screw the UK in the first place.
My prediction is that Scotland will hold a referendum and will attempt to leave, but the weak and broke EU will collapse before they can join it. Though would it not be the height of comedy if they held a referendum and actually joined the EU only to have it fail the following year, then where will Scotland be without all the free handouts of the socialist continentals and probably begging to be allowed to rejoin the UK. 🙂
Now there is an ass-whipping I would pay to see.
Still a non-story Mish. UK never joined the currency union. Good for hits on your blog I guess but the UK is less relevant economically in the era of globalization.
“UK never joined the currency union.”
I don’t think Mish ever said that we had.
Perhaps you’re confusing currency union with customs union?
UK never gave up it’s own central bank or the pound. That was part of why the EU took a confrontational line with the UK over the years, the marriage was never consummated. Because of that Britain’s loyalty to the EU/ECB was somewhere between weak and fictional and the EU knew that. They viewed it as joining in order to get the good stuff, the Schengen freedoms and the customs union but not paying the price which was to give up sovereignty to Germany. The EU never treated the UK as an equal of Germany and France because of that. But, as a rich uncle with endless deep pockets and so the EU never openly pressed Britain on the pound or the BOE.
Exactly. Which is why it isnt a big deal for the UK to leave. The EU problems stem from it being a monetary union and member countries giving up their central bank and control of their currency.
Herkie absolutely correct on this. Any new country joining the EU will be forced to be in the Eurozone.
Indeed, and the Euro is a doom machine they simply don’t know how to stop.
In other words, my guess is that he will present a bare bones deal that the back room boys can work on over time with a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude, basically because he’s got bigger fish to fry. And if they (the EU) don’t like it, then mesdames et messieurs, they can lump it.
Possible but I think more likely the EU will have no choice, it was already weak by it’s own structure, with the UK out it is fatally weakened, it is like an unstable three legged stool that just lost one of it’s legs. Between external aggressors like Russia and internal abusive nations like Hungary and Poland which are thumbing their noses at Brussels, as well as the overall unhappiness throughout the EU over cultural displacement of economic refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, to name but a few stressors on the “Union,” it is no wonder Macron is looking at his own long-term legacy and wonders if he should not cut his losses and take France independent as well. With Britain out the burden of the welfare state is going to be too much. Increased contributions to the EU will mean more dissatisfaction at home.
Do you have any evidence that suggests that Micron MIGHT take France out of the EU? Its a sincere question. I have heard and seen some pretty subversive ideas in my time, but the thought of the good Monsieur being the primary architect of Frexit seems to be a step too far imho. The idea coming from someone like Le Pen I could swallow, but I can’t ever see the powers that be allowing her to get into any serious position of responsibility. Maybe from Micron’s successor, whoever that may be.
I will do more research HeneryV, but I was thinking about the congratulations message Macron sent to Boris, it sounded a lot like someone envious of that win. I ask though, with the persistance of the Yellow Vest troubles and the rising popularity of the LePen crowd how can Macron resist much longer? Mind you France has ALWAYS deemed itself the pinical of culture and civilization, it felt like the burning of the Cathedral of Notre Dame was a bit of a turning point, as if the very symbol of French superiority was going up in flames, it fueld nationalism and look at the resignation today of the minister for pensions, that is bound to inflame the yellow vests and the far right there.
“I’m looking forward to working with him as soon as possible, not only on Europeans’ issues such as Brexit negotiations, but also international issues that we have to closely coordinate on everyday with Britain and Germany, such as Iran and other international security issues.”
Notice he is careful to include working with Johnson inside the framework of the EU, but just as careful to include working with him OUTSIDE that framework. To me that says he is keeping his options open.
The fact of the matter is that the pinnacle of French ‘Civilisation’ was between about 800AD and 1200AD in the wake of Charlemagne’s rule. Unfortunately their tendency towards absolute monarchy led to an inward perspective which meant it could not raise capital to compete with England and it became a second rate player as a result. Not only did they loose all the key wars against England in the Middle Ages, but as they were vying for world domination in the 1700s at places like Plassey and Quebec. Post WW2 it became a puppet with the strings pulled by Germany. Now the country has turned in on itself again. France is, and always has been an absolute tragedy.
BoJo is now in power for five, and very likely ten years as its doubtful Labour can make an effective comeback from such a point of weakness. He can do just what the hell he likes and take as long (or as short) as he wants. This will all be history by the time it really matters. Nobody knows his agenda at the moment, but if he wants to be seen as the great mover and shaker of the 21st Century, then he will want to get a resolution to the Brexit dilemma sorted pdq and then move on to juicier worldly matters that he can present to the electorate as the new Churchill. As I have said elsewhere, its a great pity that there was no scrutiny of ‘let’s get Brexit done’ during the election campaign, but I cannot believe that a quick solution, or indeed ANY solution which embraces the machinations of the EU, will be to his or indeed Britains benefit. Unless BoJo has the INTENT to fail the talks and tell the EU to go to hell by this time next year, then Britain will end up being sold down the river. And that might well cloud his greater ambitions.
No PM operates in a vacuum, and there are many occluded major powers at play to boot. But let us assume that Boris not only wants to be PM, but a Great PM, that he has Churchillian-like aspirations.
Let us also remember that he was Mayor of London – one of the world’s truly great city both in terms of size, cultural importance and history. As such, he is not unfamiliar with grappling with thorny practicalities. Yes, he had some duffers in there – new bridges, buses and suchlike – which get most of the press, but he also got re-elected and by all accounts the city fared well with him as Mayor (something that won’t be said about the current bigot now presiding).
In other words, he wants not only to be in power, but to make an impact, to loom large in the history books. And I believe he knows that in order to do that you actually have to ‘Get Things Done.’
Getting Brexit done means
a) taking it off the national headlines, and b)having it no longer a means of ensuring endless Parliamentary gridlock.
He has already achieved the latter in about five months from starting with a chronically hung Parliament and hung Tory Party. Not bad. And he’ll achieve the former by the third reading of the WA, perhaps in December when the WA process is essentially over, after that, it will become an arcane trade negotiation process too technical in nature to be of much interest, and therefore of less and less interest in the media.
Brexit – I think – means simply that
a) Britain can keep lively back-and-forth trade with the EU nations
b) but without political entanglement beyond such trade whilst
c) being free to flex muscle and brain in engaged trade and relations with many other nations and blocs in the wider world beyond the EU.
It’s quite doable.
Then he has to save the U.K., including the Monarchy, probably under a new King who might well be crowned – now all this Brexit mess has been sorted – in the near future. But if he has taken care of getting extracted from EU entanglements, if not in actuality then at least in the press and public perception, then the United Kingdom might become a source of pride and national aspiration again, along with significant – and widely exported – cultural creativity which will in turn boost a shared sense of national pride and confidence. Let the good times roll sort of thing.
Ireland/Eire is probably lost. It is, after all, an island unto itself. But ideally it will rejoin the UK in a few generations as an integrated whole nation in its own right, but now free of the EU as well. It could happen, but not for several generations given how long it took them to get out from under a rather nasty English thumb!
Bottom line: it all depends how much Boris wants to preside over a truly successful period in UK history. My bet is that he indeed wants this, indeed much more than he wants to be PM alone. Without that sort of over-arching, visionary success, he might well find being PM more of a boring slog than anything else.
So he will strive for greatness – both for himself and his Cabinet, Party and Nation – and his detractors will strive to bring him down. He has outsmarted, outboxed and out-visioned them so far. And he’s just getting started. So at the very least, it’s going to be an interesting period in the short-term, but lets hope longer-term too.
LOL and well said BA, the only part that raised my eyebrows was this: “Ireland/Eire is probably lost. It is, after all, an island unto itself. But ideally it will rejoin the UK in a few generations as an integrated whole nation in its own right, but now free of the EU as well. It could happen, but not for several generations given how long it took them to get out from under a rather nasty English thumb!”
The UK would never allow greater unified Ireland to be in any sort of union with them in a Nova UK down the road, they know the Irish would end up running the whole shebang.
There is an Irish pub here in my town that sports a plaque telling patrons that the only reason God created alcohol was to keep the Irish from taking over the world. But, of course there is a strong minority of Irish in both Britain and the US. And I think the shock of the realization that the day has finally come to the Unionists in Ulster that union with the UK is now on borrowed time is causing a lot of loud recriminations, but the young people are telling the older ones to FECK OFF it is their world now and they no longer want sectarian repression of half their people. When the EU fails and Ireland is whole from Belfast to Kerry then we will see that it has become one the world’s great nations self contained with unionists long forgetting their own prejudices and fears. They may well be the leading voices against any union with London.
I say they might recognize a special relationship with both England and the USA, Scotland also, with high degrees of cooperation and trade, mutual defense even, but not union, and I for one as an Irish citizen loath Irish participation in the EU for the reason that union with anyone has never lead to success or happiness for the Irish. Go there, the accents are still there but Irish cultural identity is barely perceptible, some of that is a big thank god, but, some of it is sadly missed.
Well said, Herkie! I too think that Eire would be better off going it alone.
But the Irish only take over the world when the world is faerie, a story. Now of course all truly intelligent people know that this is the truth, that our world is more dream than solid, although in this collective dream collective solidity is collectively experienced. In terms of running things well – like banks and trains and government ministries – I’m not so sure how well they’d fare on their own, but no doubt it would be a glorious experiment no matter how it might turn out!
Personally, I’d love to see a revived Gaelic federation of sorts, bringing back the language and culture. But time only marches forward, never backward (except perhaps for the Irish whose vision sees both ways perhaps), so I think that sort of cultural species is, alas, more or less extinct already.
But leaving those quibbles aside, wouldn’t it actually be nice if there really was a United Kingdom of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England? Well, maybe. There is talk of reforming the Lords, tackling devolution, major shakeups in Whitehall structure to accompany the sovereignty which Brexit will give us after January 31st 2020.
There is a chance that things might really change in substantive ways, and that would include the monarchy and apparently Charles has many ideas of stripping it down waiting to go once it’s his turn. He is much despised, but I remember his early points about architecture and organics were spot on and have stood the test of time. He might surprise. In any case, at some point the benefits of having a Monarchy must be articulated and manifest beyond simple nostalgia or fear of boat-rocking. It’s a tricky, but very deep subject. In any case, I think England could do worse than having an arguably brilliant intellect at the helm, one steeped in the classics. If it is a time of restructuring – and Cummings got a first in history remember, and this restructuring is reported to be mainly his baby – then good to have it presided over by some people with knowledge of history and political philosophy.
The Irish might find the whole thing so intellectually – not to mention theatrically – stimulating, that they turn away from the snoreundimmerhaltungsfest in Brussels and yearn to be grappling with their old nemesis again to prove their native superiority if nothing else!
“It cannot be totally one-sided so Johnson will have to give in on some minor face-saving points.”
Money to bail out Deutsche Bank.
Delays is a valid tactic to accomplish remain.
The spanking new Brexit negotiation process that has just started now finds the UK with huge leverage it didn´t have before the Dec. 12. election.
” Get Brexit Done ” may mean the UK gets to keep EU gold vaulted at the BoE.
Push will get to shove and Brexit negotiations will soon turn aggressive with a real-life possibility of No Deal.
So many EU countries could / should want to repatriate their BoE vaulted gold… just in case.
But the UK will surely ´weaponize´ the BoE gold in custody and the BoE´s gold repatriation policy.
That is a very interesting point.
But I think the chances of a Tory PM pushing against the City and related BIS is very small. To such Powers, nation states are simply cash cows whose leadership they have long ago infiltrated and now rule. These core elements within the Body Politic are the ones a vibrant Left should be exposing and bringing down. We are nowhere near that sort of scenario. (In other words, the gold you mention no longer truly belongs to the nation states mentioned, rather it is their gold – and will stay theirs thank you very much!)
If the EU do let Britain go – as I think they will – the next Big Thing in the Eurozone might well be whether or not they pivot away from the Anglo-centric postwar model to a new Eurasian one, the first sign of which will be increasing symbiosis-engendering pipeline deals with Russia. The problem there is that Russia has something they need and want, but they don’t have much that Russia needs and wants so hard to create a lasting symbiosis as Russia and China have done. The Mongols made it to the Ukraine zone – the far Western end of the great Eurasian plains zone – seven centuries ago but their conquest was forestalled by the Great Khan’s funeral in China which took a year or two to sort out. However, it’s possible that their descendants will make it to Lisbon in the not too distant future.
Ironically, it is the UK’s leaving the EU which makes some sort of Eurasian Union more likely, in which case the UK will be in the Maritime Powers bloc with US, NZ, Japan, India, maybe Brazil and so forth, a front now being formed in current supply chain battles, the softening-up artillery for which is known as ‘tariffs’ and ‘trade wars.’
I´m not sure what you mean by saying “truly” but I suggest being very tidy (for lack of a better term) regarding gold ownership under the current highly-unstable international financial situation (terminal crisis ?) with the very real-life possibility of having to return to some sort of gold standard sooner than what Mr. Btfd Fomo expects.
For one, Italy does NOT agree with what you posit BaronAsh.
Italy constantly insists its gold is THEIRS.
And when push gets to shove every other EU nation-state member will claim the same.
The problem being
(a) does the BoE still have everybody´s gold bullion… or was it sold off during “Brown´s bottom” ? maybe later also ?
(b) whatever gold is still inside BoE vaults (queen´s visit included) is the BoE willing to return it to legitimate owners whomever they might be established to be ?
(c) or has the BoE re-hypothecated or encumbered such gold bullion many times over with many MANY many alleged claimers waiting in line as gold bugs say they are without batting an eyelash ?
The BoE supposedly holds lots of EU nation-state gold “in custody”@BaronAsh but…
Good points.
The question comes down to:
a) who controls the BoE, HMG or the City?
b) similarly, does ‘Italy’ hold sway over BIS/the City?
I don’t pretend to know. But I suspect central banks rule the roost in such matters.
For this “Golden Brexit” event I foresee the City, HMG and the BoE acting as one and the same, with extreme “golden” cohesion amongst all of these Old Etonian types.
On the other side, I foresee fragmentation amongst the different nation-states that make up the EU (mind you with no political union binding them together) each claiming partial or total re-patriation of its gold vaulted at the BoE.
Of course, the ECB would simultaneosuly also claim it is “their” EU gold, but however it is diced or sliced the “continental gold” now vaulted across the English Channel will be weaponized by the UK during Brexit negotiations.
Everything else is a ´relatively´ minor problem (yes) EXCEPT fisheries and the Scottish independence issue which adds on to the BoE´s EU gold custody conundrum we are discussing. Thank you for your input@BaronAsh
Well: is it gold or gold-plated tungsten?
Only those BISy Elves in Zurich, the City and Manhattan know….
Thxs for kind words.
But of course more thanks to Mish for hosting such a good blog…
Let´s not mince words.
IMHO it looks as if it´d be ” The Brexit Gold War “
Imagine the conflict in no uncertain terms(and desperation) related to audit parameters, serial numbers claimed by more than one (supposedly legitimate) recipient, gold bar purity, transportation and insurance costs, etc.
This seems unlikely for a number of reasons. The most important of them is that by modern-day standards of monetary inflation the value of all that gold vaulted at the BoE is piffling. Consider that since mid 2008 alone, the ECB has boosted the true money supply of the euro area by 5 trillion euros – from a level of 3.8 trillion to 8.8 trillion currently. All the gold ever mined in human history is estimated to be worth about USD 7 trillion if memory serves.
But what about gold at USD $ 55 thousand the ounce as it should be per solid calculations vis-á-vis worldwide the USD $ 285 Trillion debt (and growing) ? Please see link below.
How about at USD $ 55 thousand dollars the ounce (or far more) as it should be in view of the (UN-payable) worldwide debt to the tune of almost USD $ 300 trillion not counting CDOs, and the humongous alphabet soup of synthetic financial products (weapons of financial mass destruction per Warren Buffet) exceeding USD 1 quadrillion ?
Under the current highly-unstable international financial situation (terminal crisis ?) gold ownership and possession would matter in view of the very real-life possibility of having to return to some sort of gold standard sooner than what Mr. Fomo Btfd expects.
But what about at USD $ 55 thousand the ounce as it should be ?
You missed that we are now at the beginning of …”…a highly-unstable international financial situation (terminal crisis ?) with the very real-life possibility of having to return to some sort of gold standard sooner than what Mr. Fomo Btfd expects.
” NO DEAL ” Brexit getting closer and closer.
“The Brexit Gold War” won´t be fun…
“Once Johnson was willing to throw DUP under the bus, the ballgame changed for the EU as well.”
Johnson: I’ll give you $100
EU: No
Johnson: OK, I’ll give you $150 then
EU: OK
Johnson capitulating and the EU accepting a giveaway does not make the EU inconsistent, it makes then pragmatic.
Brexit means different things to an anti-globalist motivated voter in the North of England than a home county loudmouth in the 19th hole. Johnson has to deliver one Brexit that pleases both of them. Should be interesting to watch. The EU is expecting him to discover reality, but it will take time, especially as he is confusing a 1% increase in voter share and a win over the most unelectable opposition leader since Michael Foot (and I think Foot would have given Johnson a better run than Corbyn) with a “mandate”. Thus the EU are already talking about asking the U.K. for an extension beyond December 2020.
To win the election Johnson swung sharply to the left, promising a $13.20 minimum wage (at PPP this is well over the U.S. $15/hour that the right wing here is claiming will be the EOTWAWKI). He also promised to spend $50B on the NHS and another $100B on infrastructure, eliminating austerity and exploding the deficit and national debt. More Johnson promises include net zero carbon by 2050 and no tax cuts.
Mish has decided that Johnson is just lying to the electorate, and he is right – Johnson lies with the same recklessness as Trump. This may not work as well in the U.K. as it does with the conspiracy theory riddled electorate in the U.S.
Farage is rightfully concerned with the size of the Conservative win. It not only means that the DUP have no veto, but also the most extreme cadre of Brexiteers in the Tory party. Johnson came to the Brexit side late in the game when he concluded that it was the best vehicle for his ambition. His ambition is to be not only Prime Minister, but the next Winston Churchill. This type of ambition will allow him to justify just about any action he deems expedient.
Anybody still think we can understand Johnson, British Politics, and the future using two simple rules?
You just rephrased exactly what Mish said.
Mish I would even add a third.
.3. Politicians will always do what gives them more power.
Because seriously when was the last time a politician did something that took away some of their power.
There is only one rule – some politicians will lie if they have to to get what they want.
We know who they are. Why do we vote for them?
Brexit has been made into a narrative. Brexit will never happen in any meaningful way.
It would be naive to think Brexit is an answer to whatever troubles UK, it is the end of an excuse and so cannot “happen”. Its narrative is used, will be used, but at some point will become “yesterday”. At that point people will, and will be able to, focus fully on UK itself. I think only creating a path for that is satisfaction enough for now. Europe is a vast and varied continent, it will still be there after Brexit, but “the continuing adventure of EU” is not something to be caught up in at all in my opinion, if you want to keep anything you can call UK at least.
I believe Brexit when I see it. Those delays are also a method to postpone, potentially to oblivion.
You will not have to wait long. 12-15 months.
|Brexit will be delivered.
Of course clowns may disagree over the knat’s ass.
And likely will because they will never own up to being blatantly wrong.
Is that you Avid?