Failure of Statecraft
In Dublin, on September 9, Boris Johnson and Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) held a joint press conference in Dublin on the backstop.
Boris Johnson said the UK could get through No Deal, “But it Would be a Failure of Statecraft”. Johnson also brought up the idea of a Northern Ireland only backstop.
I thought it was general posturing. After all, Johnson has to make it appear as if he wants a deal, whether or not he really does.
Genuine Breakthrough?
The Guardian reports EU Looks to Northern Ireland-Only Backstop to Break Brexit Impasse.
The Journal reports Northern Ireland-Only Backstop Ruled Out by Boris Johnson, says DUP
See the flaw in the second headline?
Here it is: “says DUP“.
DUP Dump Coming?
Theresa May’s coalition had a majority at the time of 3. She needed 10 DUP votes to stay in power. Johnson does not need 10 votes, he needs dozens.
What convinced me Johnson might be changing his tune is a discussion on Eurointelligence.
So what is Boris Johnson going to do with the five weeks he gained from last night’s prorogation of parliament? Yesterday he met with Leo Varadkar in Dublin. The main impression Johnson left is that he is serious about reaching a deal, calling it a failure of statecraft if a compromise cannot be achieved before October 31.
Johnson rejected Theresa May’s negotiated backstop, so what kind of deal does he have in mind? A common zone for agri-food and animals as well as trusted-trader schemes are part of the discussions. This could be extended to a Northern-Ireland-only backstop which solves the Irish border issue by moving the checkpoints to the Irish channel. This was a proposal by the EU earlier in the process, but rejected by the DUP in Northern Ireland.
At this stage, the discussions are about sounding out those proposals that may have a chance to succeed.
But the device of a NI-only backstop with consent is tricky. A simple consultation process may be considered too weak, and a stronger notion could make the EU’s future trade rules subject to a unionist veto at Stormont. There is no way the EU would agree to this.
Everything Flawed
This is where it gets tricky. There is no agreement on anything.
These proposals may not be relevant in the end because it is far from clear that a deal with a Northern-Ireland-only backstop would command a majority in the House of Commons. There are Labour MPs who bitterly regret not having voted in favour Theresa May’s deal.
But we think the party’s official position will be to accept a deal only on condition that it is put to a second referendum. We still don’t think that this option commands a majority in the House of Commons either. The 20+ Tory rebels are also not unanimously in favour of a second referendum. But, for a new deal to pass, it is essential that the number of Labour supporters of a bill exceed the number of Tory detractors. We have no doubt that Number 10 will do the math on the bill much more carefully than the previous team.
The Math
If Johnson proposes something, he will either have the votes or be within spitting distance of them.
However, the European Research Group (ERG), the hard-Brexit backing Tories not only want to kill the backstop, they want to kill the political declaration as well.
To understand why, please consider Even if the EU Offers to Remove the Backstop, the Draft Withdrawal Agreement Must Still be Rejected.
There are many features of the Withdrawal Agreement which are just as bad as the Backstop, but which have received far less attention, notably from our Prime Minister.
The Withdrawal Agreement would maintain the supremacy of EU law over the UK, including new laws created by the EU over which the UK would have no voice. This means that UK courts would be required to strike down Acts of Parliament if they are determined to be inconsistent with EU law.
Worse, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would be retrained, either directly or through a dispute settlement system modelled on the one the EU has with the Ukraine through which a notionally neutral tribunal would be bound on issues of EU law by decisions of ECJ. Since the UK would have no judge on the ECJ, it would effectively be under the jurisdiction of a foreign court.
If that isn’t anti-democratic enough, although the UK would be bound by decisions of the EU institutions, including the European Commission, it would not be able to submit proposals or even requests for information to these bodies. Moreover, UK companies would be subject to EU State Aid rules after the transition period, removing a valuable tool of economic policy from the British government. Add to this the fact that the Withdrawal Agreement has very strict financial penalties for breach of its provisions and there would be no recourse to international courts for their resolution.
Theresa May truly negotiated one of the worst deals in the history of the world.
Let’s return to Eurointelligence.
Canada Deal
What about the European Research Group? They reject any form of a backstop, but what might be tempting is the possibility of a Canada-style trade deal for mainland Britain under this solution. A Northern-Ireland-only backstop is also the EU’s preferred option. But there is a catch. The EU would almost certainly insist that the UK refrains from undercutting the EU on social standards. There is technically no reason why a simple free-trade deal should be intrusive, but the EU will argue that the UK is a much bigger economy than Canada, and much closer. We don’t think the UK would accept any restrictions on its ability to regulate its own economy under a simple Canada-style free-trade deal. Theresa May avoided this issue with the nature of her withdrawal agreement. A different deal will reopen the issue.
Whereas the ERG may have been content to kill just the backstop with Theresa May in charge, they expect and demand more from Johnson.
I support a Canada-style free trade deal. But it cannot be at the expense of all the ERG objections above.
And note those Labour members who now regret voting against May’s deal. It failed by only a few votes.
Conclusion
In the end, we believe that Johnson could end up in the same spot as Theresa May: with a rejected deal and renewed opposition by Nigel Farage and the ERG who will be demanding a clean Brexit. Johnson’s advisers will surely say that he won’t be able to move to a more conciliatory position until after an election. This is why we remain sceptical about the prospects of a deal this side of a general election in the UK.
Election Solution
The solution, of course, is to hold an election.
For all Cobyn’s whining, he does not want an election, at least not now.
That will not change until Corbyn thinks he has a good chance of winning.
Salvini Trap
Eurointelligence mentions the “Salvini Trap”.
Matteo Salvini of Italy’s League party killed his coalition with the Five Star Movement, M5S.
Salvini was comfortable doing that because he had an unbeatable advantage in the polls.
But check out the result. After the coalition dissolved, instead of elections, M5S was able to form a coalition with PD.
This new coalition came into being despite the fact that M5S came into power (with the League) running totally on an anti-PD platform, calling the PD leadership corrupt and stating they would never enter a coalition with them.
The League is now out of government with no election in sight.
Imaginary Scenario
The House of Commons returns in October. There is a no deal. Jeremy Corbyn calls a no-confidence vote, wins and agrees to support a national unity government under Kenneth Clarke as interim prime minister. Clarke may only receive a mandate to seek an extension. But, as we observe in other parts of Europe, interim government can prove sticky.
Can’t happen? Consider Corbyn is a much diminished figure these days. Imagine that Labour’s popularity will continue to shrink, and that the Labour leadership concludes it cannot afford elections at this point. What started as a short-lived government of national unity would then remain in office because those that support it are desperate to avoid elections. They are playing for time. That government could seek a Brexit extension until after the next scheduled elections in 2022 – at which point the British electorate may have lost interest in Brexit.
This is not a prediction, only a scenario. But look at what just happened in Italy.
We admire Cummings’ strategic acumen, but strange things happen in politics that are beyond the grip of a strategic planner.
We don’t think it is possible to game the multitude of interacting political scenarios beyond October. Our baseline scenario remains that the House of Commons will ultimately not succeed in stopping Brexit. But it looks increasingly uncertain that Brexit will happen on October 31.
Not a Prediction
Eurointelligence says “This is not a prediction, only a scenario.”
Eurointelligence put no percentages on the idea. I won’t either. It’s hard enough to figure out what will happen before Oct 31 to ponder such an idea.
The primary counter is Corbyn has no genuine support from the public, the ejected Tories, SNP, or the Liberal Democrats.
The counter to the counter is what happened in Italy.
What About Benn?
I am confident that Johnson will not ask for an extension. Politically he can’t.
I am also confident Johnson has a way around Benn.
However, he may not need to use whatever method he had in mind.
Those who thought Johnson may revive May’s deal might be close. As long as we are speculating, what if Johnson comes back with a deal after all.
To do so, he will have to dump DUP. Would Parliament reject it?
Will things even get that far?
I am still trying to get an answer to a simple question: Is Johnson obligated to give a Queen’s Speech on October 14. Can he wait until after the EU meeting on the 18th?
Ultimately, it is the No Confidence vote that is in control, not this Benn sideshow.
Eurointelligence is back on track with this statement: “It looks increasingly uncertain that Brexit will happen on October 31”
What We Do Know
- The Benn bill passed. It requires Johnson to ask for an extension or present a plan for Parliament to vote on.
- A vote of No Confidence is the most sure-fire way of getting rid of Johnson and preventing No Deal.
- On Oct 17-18 Johnson meets with the EU.
What We Don’t Know
- What tricks Johnson has up his sleeve pertaining to Benn.
- Whether Corbyn will wait for the 19th before launching a motion.
- If Corbyn’s huge ego will get in the way of him supporting a caretaker government led by someone other than himself.
- If Corby insists on himself, if the expelled Tories, SNP, and the Liberal Democrats will go along.
- If Johnson plans to dump DUP or how Parliament would vote if he did.
Wait and See
Recall that Boris Johnson will “Test Legal Limits” of the Benn bill.
Also recall Chancellor Sajid Javid reply when pressured in an interview by Andrew Marr about how it is possible to obey the law yet not seek an extension.
Javid responsed “We will be consistent with obeying the law but also sticking to our policy. You have to wait and see that happen.”
We may have to wait until October 19 unless Corbyn files a motion before then. Such a motion cannot occur before Oct 14. Thus, October 14 is the minimum wait.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
A minority of hardliner political class Unionists in NI are the ENTIRE problem here.
One of the problems May had and now Johnson is that the stodgy protestant buggers in NI are still thinking it is 1978, and the ironic thing is the parts of NI that are most heavily protestant are the parts that voted with the UK to leave the EU while the Catholic parts voted to remain. Now it is the protestants that are standing in the way of a deal to leave the EU. Time to dump them, the majority of the protestants might still be unionists but are no longer deeply involved in politics and many are angrier about NI being relegated to second class citizenship and being governed by the Home Office which appointed a new governor recently that said she “did not know much about Northern Ireland.”
If Johnson and Varadkar can get a deal done for an Ireland only backstop there would be no stopping Brexit on October 31. So naturally the old queens in Labour will try to stop it.
The ancient mandarins of the DUP and Ulster Unionists see any backstop as basically London giving NI to the RoI. And I have seen Youtube vids recently from NI that ask the people there what they think of a possible referendum to leave the UK and unify Ireland, the great majority of Catholics say great as long as our new protestant friends are not too overwhelmed. And the protestants mostly say no but that if it happens it happens, not that big a deal. Many though also said they would prefer to be part of Ireland and the EU than to be part of the UK without the EU. I am betting that the old hardliners in the Unionist party really do not want a backstop because it would inevitably lead to reunification of Ireland once everyone sees that as far as NI goes it would be better for them than to be an afterthought in the eyes of the home office.
It’s increasingly hard to care about the possible outcome. Let’s just wait till the end of october and see what happens. Frankly, it’s like watching a bad soap opera, and I feel I’ve missed too many episodes
“As it stands now, a no-confidence motion on Oct. 17 is probably Brexit’s greatest threat at the moment.”
That and “emergency” legislation are in fact the ONLY threats. This Scotland thing is a political joke.
As it stands now, a no-confidence motion on Oct. 17 is probably Brexit’s greatest threat at the moment. You mention quite prominently in your piece above. The remain forces are strong in Britain and across the EU. If Brexit get’s extended, then it will never happen under this parliament. Another election? Who knows.
There is a steep cost to stopping this farce now.
There will be a much much steeper cost if it drags on.
Not necessarily. If the EU implodes of it’s own accord the UK can leave gracefully without all the bitter internal conflicts that are ripping the country apart right now. By staying out of the Euro the UK can insulate itself from the worst of any trauma that might be forthcoming in the EU. No one will argue about leaving the EU if the EU itself is collapsing and ceases to exist on its own accord.
Sure, it will be painful to be a member of an EU that comes apart at the seams but the damage to the nation will likely be less (and less long lasting) that what is occurring now.
You seem to have forgotten the animosity created by poltiicians deciding what is best for THEM and then forcing it upon everyone else.
Staying with the EU as it implodes means Parliament never says sorry — so forgiveness never happens either. At some point (and I don’t mean elections), Parliament will need the support of the country and it won’t be there.
As the EU collapses, it will be a daily reminder that those costs and that uncertainty was completely unnecessary and imposed on the country by arrogant politicians.
The longer this farce drags on, the loss of trust between government and the governed is going to fester and grow
It’s kind of like having a cheating spouse who has terminal cancer. Is it worth going through a divorce and upsetting the children when your spouse just went into hospice? It won’t help the kids to dredge up the infidelity of the ill spouse (which they are blissfully unaware of). The better course is just to hang in for the remaining months, going through the motions of being a good spouse and let the bastard die quietly. The only people to win starting a divorce at this point is the lawyers.
If you have proof that the EU and Obamacare will die in the next two months, then great.
The EU will probably keep circling the drain for a few years.
Left wing extremists are still trying to convince anyone still listening that Obamacare wasn’t the mother of all screw ups. Forced financing of a criminal racket by a Chicago thug is more accurate.
When Obama wasn’t starting wars, scamming a peace prize or inflaming racial tensions — the guy was making a bad health care system 100x worse FOR US. He was too much of a corrupt coward to put himself on Obamacare.
Headline at Reuters: Brexit in chaos after court rules PM’s suspension of parliament was unlawful
Scotland’s highest court of appeal ruled against Johnson’s decision to prorogue, or suspend, parliament from Monday until Oct. 14 — a blow for the government as it seeks to leave the European Union on Oct. 31 with or without a deal.
So the remainers went judge shopping and found an SNP inclined judge to rule in their favor even though…
Last week, the High Court of England and Wales rejected a similar challenge by campaigners, saying it was a political not a judicial matter.
Remainer drama queens are demanding that BoJo resign for “misleading the queen,” who I am sure is going to be thrilled to have the SNP and remainers paint her as so gullible as to okay prorogue Parliament based upon a BJ lie?
The thrust of the “excoriating ruling” is that Johnson and his aids/allies were discussing their options prior to prorogue as a way to stymie debate, in other words politicians being politicians, even though no law was broken by their discussing their options. Talk about trying to stymie the opposition, the Tory government can’t even talk about how to handle their duties without some podunque judge up in Scotland “excoriating” them.
Even though Johnson had the confidence of the parliament after he called for both early elections (DENIED) and for a motion of no confidence in the government (also DENIED) so if Johnson (and by default the queen who approved the prorogue) suspended debate till October 14 it was with the very parliament’s consent which they later now sue to overturn.
The divisions in the opposition Labour Party over Brexit were on display on Wednesday, when its deputy leader, Tom Watson, said he supported pressing for a second referendum before an early national election. Meaning: He wants a revote of the Brexit article 50 immediately, prior to a snap general election in November (presumably because he knows the divided left will lose to the Tories who would then shut down any move to revote Brexit.
Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party which could take votes away from both main parties, offered Johnson an election pact on Wednesday but said that unless there was a clean break with the EU, the Conservatives would take a “real kicking” in any election and could not win a majority. So, with a compact between Johnson and the Brexit party they have a majority right now if Johnson were to yield and comply with the ruling in Scotland which the MSM would portray as him losing yet another battle with the remainers. All Farage wants in return is a clean break with the EU, presumably a no deal Brexit on the 31st of October.
I normally would say go for it BJ, yield to the Scottish ruling and end prorogue, let the fancy drama queens back into the building to cluck and pule and spread their feathers as they preen before a ruling EU elite. It will not matter because conservatives combined with DUP and Brexit party will have a majority. But, I don’t say that because just like the way the moron remainers who have fallen into every trap you have set for them there may well be a lefty trap set here also.
Johnson though must have other ideas because the story says he has ruled out a pact with Farage, who in turn said that if they get to November 1 and the UK is still in the EU a lot of conservatives will defect to the Brexit party. I don’t like the tone of that, it can only warm the cockles of the liberal/labour hearts.
Side note, I did not realize what a small party the Lib Dems were till I went to the HoC MP web page and counted them. Seventeen. From all the press they have gotten you would expect them to be many multiples of that.
The reason this whole farce does not work is simple.
The Queen is the sovereign of the UK.
Brussels and the “remainers” think the Queen stepped down and surrendered, leaving a committee of unelected fools as sovereign.
Parliament thinks they have authority without the Queen and also without popular support.
And now Edinborough thinks they are also in charge?
The whole world mocked England during the Falkland Islands war, because England officially had 300 admirals in command of only 62 ships. History repeats
In other words, it was idiocy for arrogant political types to ram thru things like the EU and Obamacare when the population was so divided.
Brexit isn’t the problem. The EU never got popular support in the first place. The Brexit referendum was the first time the population was even asked. That was the mistake.
The pompous as?es in Washington DC shoved Obamacare down our faces without any popular vote, and then to rub salt in the wound they exempted themselves. That was a mistake.
EU must get repealed. Obamacare must get repealed. Big changes to society must have true popular support — not a 50.001% margin or anything that is close to a statistical tie.
Agree 100% When a change like Merkel inviting 1.5 Muslims to settle in her country with more family members arriving in the future years, I would have imagined that she would have needed 75% or more approval. She has permanently changed the ethnic mix of Germany for ever and handed an unnecessary explosive issue to the future generations. I think so.
All this may be true, but the fact remains that Brexit can’t be successful while a civil war is being waged at home. You just can’t conduct successful negotiations with other nations when you are constantly being undermined on the home front. Worse, I don’t see any good prospect of the domestic battle lessening anytime soon.
You didn’t read my comment carefully. Brexit is the default setting. There was never popular support to surrender sovereignty to Brussels.
Remainers had the burden of getting popular support **BEFORE** the EU exists. They were too arrogant to try, or more likely they knew all along they would not get a meaningful majority to vote in favor.
So ditch the EU, ditch Obamacare , and stop pretending like 50.0001% is a mandate to piss everyone off. The EU never passed. Obamacare never passed.
All these pseudo “laws” that were jammed in by 50.0001% of a cloistured political class — and not by the general population — need to be recognized as the frauds that they are
Leaving the EU may be the right and moral thing to do (I have no firm opinion), but I am just pointing out that it will be an economic and political disaster for the UK, possibly even leading to a breakup of the union. There are too many people willing to fight to prevent Brexit that it has made it impossible to make a clean break without massive economic and political collateral damage.
You are starting from a position that does not exist. Joining never happened. They can’t exit something they never joined.
That is the reason this thing is such a mess. A cloistured group of politicians decided to join the EU for their own benefit. The UK did not join.
The Queen did not surrender sovereignty to Brussels. No one even suggested such a thing. Give us the name of the Remainer who will go on public record stating the Queen is no longer sovereign.
Brussels has no authority. It is the Remainers who have the burden of showing why the Queen should be removed and replaced with Brussels.
I notice not one of the so-called Remainers is stupid enough to admit that removing the Queen as sovereign is what they are advocating. They are lying not just to the country, but to themselves also.
Parliament needs to pass a law eliminating the Queen and royal family, or else they need to admit the EU is a farce.
PS — Obamacare never legitimately passed in the USA either. Obama the pompous peace prize winner ignored the people, started endless wars, and the media was too busy telling us about his race to admit his signature legislation lacked popular support. It didn’t even pass fairly through Congress. That Boehner and Ryan were too cowardly to repeal it doesn’t change the fact it never got support in the first place. Warren and Bernie are throwing the election to Trump because they won’t face this reality.
Its not just Brexit. Its not just Obamacare. Its not just illegal immigrants raping Germans and Swedes. Its not just illegal immigrants overwhelming Italy. Its not just Parisians imposing taxes on the rest of France to pay for Paris… Its the whole rotten stench of arrogance
I don’t disagree with a word you said. But it doesn’t change the fact that leaving the EU is going to do severe damage to the UK both economic and politically (i.e. with a likely break up of the nation). The mass of citizens fighting tooth and nail to prevent Brexit that a horrendous toll will be exacted on the national economy and political institutions. We are already seeing evidence of this, but I predict this is just the beginning.
The war won’t really start until the UK has actually left the EU. That’s when the referendums to secede will start. That’s when constitutional chaos and court rulings will go off the charts (exceeding anything yet seen).
I am not passing judgment on Brexit. I am just pointing out that severe consequences are unavoidable.
Again, they are not leaving the EU. They never joined.
No country in Europe ever joined the EU. A hand full of politicians got together in secret meetings. No referendums were passed. No actual sovereign entities stepped aside.
Maintaining the farce is causing civil war too, not just in England.
“Prorogation ruled illegal by Scots”
No chance this survives – already died in England Courts
You are shooting from the hip Mish. The law in the UK is a lottery and now the Supreme court has to pay due deference to Scots law so the balance is already tipped. Don’t put any money on any outcome.
The law of England and Wales governs the operation of the Westminster Parliament.
Before the FTPA, part of the ratio decedendi of GCHQ was that certain Royal Prerogatives are not Justiciable, among them being the prerogative to dissolve Parliament; FTPA specifically state that prorogation was not affected by that Act, so it would be reasonable to believe an English Court would not seek to thwart a prorogation, it being a matter for the political branches.
In my opinion, the Scots court’s order is ultra vires. Boris can simply say so and state that he will ignore it.
The problem is that Boris and his advisors seem to have no talent for Constitutional law, or they are deliberately botching it.
The question is when will the Remoaners give up? If the SCUK refuses to intervene, will they insist on meeting BoJo et al on the field at Worcester before they chase him out of England like Charles II?
Actually, it’s a poetic twist that it’s the Scots who take this shot, given their history of handing Charles I over to Cromwell for his ultimate beheading.
I’m sure you don’t mean Government Communication Headquarters(GCHQ). The laws of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland govern Westminster. The Scot’s court that made today’s decision is the highest in Scotland and therefore cannot be ultra vires in Scotland. There are four Scots judges on the UK Supreme Court so the arguments next Tuesday will pay due deference to Scots law. That said the law in the UK is a lottery so anything could happen. The main problem for the liar is that he has expelled all the clever Tory MPs and is just left with the dross.
Sorry, I meant: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (“the GCHQ Case”).
Who gives a rat’s behind what a Scottish Court holds with respect to the Westminster Parliament? Scottish law is not applicable, so the ruling is ultra vires.
But I take your point that the SCUK might put the suck into UK jurisprudence and decide to expand their reach into the political branches, though the decisions of last week seem to suggest their English colleagues are so ready to go that far.
I meant to type “not so ready to go that far.”
SCUK overturning the prorogation would create a serious constitutional crisis.
I suspect BoJo did not ask QE to withold assent to the Benn Bill because that would have created a constituional crisis that could have led to the end of the Monarchy.
The SCUK knows that in a Brexited UK, the Act that created them as a separate institution can safely be repealed and the SCUK can be folded back into Lords. First rule of bureaucracy is to always protect your fiefdom.
There are two problems with your view of the Scots and Scottish law, both are political. To dismiss Scottish law plays into the hand of the SNP. It is also highhanded and adds to the case for Scottish independence. The second is that once you start saying in effect the law does not matter you are on a slippery slope to anarchy. We have quite enough anarchy at the moment without adding to it.
Hey, here’s a wild one … Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 obliges the Courts to not impeach or question proceedings in Parliament.
Except that the wild explosion in the number of Judicial Reviews and EU legislation, to which we are still subject, has driven a coach and horses through the bill of rights. In theory no parliament can bind another, however as soon as we joined the EEC one parliament did bind all successor parliaments. Now, the only argument worth having in all this Brexit mess was wether the UK was more powerful in the EU or outside the EU. If you believe, like I do, that the future belongs to the big boys with populations measured in the 100s of millions or in two cases billions then a population of 60 odd millions needs to join with other like minded and same size populations to stand a chance in a world where 1984 is on the horizon. A Danish Prime Minister said ” Europe is made up of small nations who understand that they are small nations and some nations that don’t realise they are small.” All things being equal China will soon pass America as the richest state on earth soon to be followed by India. The former Imperial powers have to stick together because ” The strong do what they can, the poor suffer what they must.”
This may not stand, but it further accentuates the domestic conflicts that are making it impossible for the government to manage an effective Brexit. It is insane to attempt Brexit at the same time as fighting a civil war.
It is more insane to try and overturn the result of the referendum.
Overturning the referendum is insane, but it is utterly impossible to make a successful Brexit, renegotiating relationships with the world, when you are fighting a civil war at home. The referendum was a the dumbest policy move ever, setting up a no win situation that would bog down the nation in civil war for decades to come.
Sadly the civil war happened because we didn’t just exit the EU immediately after the vote, a sad mistake.
The best way to stop the civil war from here is to lance the boil and leave. Once we are out, things will calm down. Remainers will realise that there is no going back any time soon. They will just have to hope that the economy collapses or something to get their way.
I don’t think that it will collapse, I can see no reason why it should. With the UK no longer a tax farm I see the economy improving. EUphiles are likely to find that they lose their support very quickly if the economy doesn’t tank. The remainers will all just drift away.
What certainly will not help is the status quo of extending and pretending. People are rightfully angry that remainer MPs have blocked Brexit. If you cant win by voting, all you are left with is war.
All this UK political drama further highlights the insanity of Brexit. Attempting any kind of massive constitutional change (which Brexit is) when opinion is SO sharply divided is idiocy. Worse, when your constitutional change requires high stakes negotiations with other nations to succeed there is absolutely no hope of success while you continue to fight battles on the home front over those negotiations.
The situation is rapidly spinning out of Tory control. If BoJo has cards, he needs to play them in the next month or risk losing any possibility of Brexit in the foreseeable future. Once Brexit happens with no deal, realistic deal discussions can begin. Until then, striking a deal is impossible when the other side knows the UK cannot walk away without a deal. [Imagine one spouse telling the other in front of a car salesman “Negotiate the deal, but we absolutely, positively are not going home without this car”. How good of a deal do you think they will get?] So all of the government’s resources need to be dedicated to leaving the EU on Halloween.
The problem with what you say is that with no deal the UK and EU do not carry on in the same way as before. No deal means that all treaties between the UK and EU cease to exist. The world does not return to its status on 31/10/19, it returns to the world of 31/12/73. The UK will trade on WTO third country terms with the rest of the world like North Korea and East Timor. This is a dreadful outcome.
It will not take much time to do a deal with the Commonwealth—they can just go back to the deal they had before the EU pre-empted it. As for WTO rules with North Korea and East Timor, somehow I think the UK will find a way to keep calm and carry on.
Not so. Among the objectors to the UK Schedules are Australia and New Zealand. Now I have a question for you. Other objectors to our schedules are Argentina and Russia. What do you propose that we should offer to persuade them to drop their objections? Remember that not being able to trade under full membership of the WTO is an awful prospect. Andrea Leadsome, one of the principle leavers and deceivers, has said today that the government will not publish
Yellowhammer because it would cause panic. The leavers have gone from saying everything will be wonderful to there will be bumps on the road to saying we can’t publish our own assessment of the effects of no deal because it would cause panic. Your last sentence is a breathtaking example of complacency.
gone from saying that everything woulld be wonder ful to there will be bumps along the road to publish
Ok so Australia is objected to UK schedules, so what? Do a FTA with us seeing as our government wants one with your government as soon as possible. In the mean time you can keep trading as you were. Pretty much the only thing is that your WTO schedules won’t be certified. Anyway you’ll have at least one country (South Korea) doing a carry over from the EU agreements.
I’d imagine that there would be a whole bunch of African and Asian countries lining up to get FTA’s with the UK. After all why wouldn’t they. They’re not going to say no to UK money building up their economies.
What is your country? For as long as there are objections to our schedules then the UK trades on WTO imposed tariffs. South Korea will roll over the FTA dependent on the outcome of UK-EU talks. The whole of Africa’s GDP is about 10% of the EU in value terms. Asian countries are falling over themselves as you put it to do deals with the EU. Which do you think is more attractive an FTA with 500 millions or 65 millions? Have you heard of the belt and road initiative?
My country is Australia. Why do you think countries wouldn’t be trying to conclude an FTA with both the UK and the EU? After all for country like Australia its far easier to negotiate an FTA with one country than a block of 26.
I’d note that right now that the EU is trying to do a deal with Australia and its going to be a protracted affair because of their demands. Assuming it happens at all of course.
I expect it will eventually but there is no doubt that their calls for us to clean up our fuel so they can sell cars with Euro VI (I think) compliant engines is going to slow the deal down.
What about the BRI?
I think you will find that you already have a trade deal with the EU. It is this trade deal that forms the basis of your country’s objection to our schedules.Your 23 millions will not make up for the loss of the Single Market. You don’t buy much from us anyway. What was the slogan ” If you want to go to the bush buy a Land Rover, if you want to come back buy a Toyota. ” On a better note it was wonderful to see you guys knock spots off the English.
Well I googled and I can’t find a current dispute with the UK
I seem to recall something about how quota’s (on agricultural goods IIRC) would be split once the UK departed the EU, but that would also affect the EU naturally.
As to us replacing the EU, of course we wouldn’t. The whole point is for you to trade with a raft of different countries rather than relying on a bunch of moribund EU economies. I notice you said that Africa only accounts for 10% of the value of the EU market. Thats today. Demographics will see those markets exploding in years to come.
Lastly in an area where I am profoundly ignorant, we may have existing trade agreements with the EU, but we don’t have an FTA which is obviously the point of the ongoing negotiations. Here is a list of Australian FTA’s
It is not a trade dispute it is an objection to another country’s schedules. The two are quite diffent.
I think we’re about done here, but its clear there is a group of countries (Australia/New Zealand/South Africa in particular) who are jostling to get FTA’s with the UK because its obviously in our own self interest to wedge our foot in the UK market before anyone else does. I imagine even if you exit with a Canada style agreement or May’s warmed over deal that you’ll still be negotiating the finer points with the EU years down the track
Agreed
The bill that received Royal Assent on Monday was European Union the (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 c. 26.
I thought the Benn Bill was European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6).
What did I miss?
Prorogation ruled illegal by Scots.
Clowns 6: Mish 0
What a f*cking clown world.
The UK has some scheme for recaling members of Parliament. I ahve seen it mentioned in the Guardian as havnig been applied. Is there some likelihood this would be applied to deal with, e.g., Tory Remainers? I have nevver seen the rules on this, which may well not be applicable, set out.
In summary, the whole catastrophe boils down to the arrogance of Brussels.
I would bet that there are many many women bankers in the EU besides Christine Lagarde (men too, but we must be politically correct). There is no reason to put in a proven failure just because she is a crony. Taking a chance on a promising unknown is risky, but still makes more sense than betting it all on a proven failure. No functioning organization would put in a disaster when there are so many other options available. Christine Lagarde is what many in the States like to label an unforced error.
The EU is the problem, and not just for the UK. Nothing that happens in London is going to fix a problem in Brussels, which is why the UK would have been better off cutting their losses as quickly as possible.
Brussels does not run the EU, Frankfurt does, Brussels only runs the bureaucracy, the real rulers are the bankers centered on the ECB and Franco German banks. This was part of the reason why the UK and the City of London rebelled.
No one runs the EU. The EU never established any sort of legitimacy.
Give us a link to a law passed by the Bundestag that dissolved the Bundestag. It didn’t happen. Brussels isn’t a real thing.
Tell us the name of any so-called Remainer who will go on record stating the Queen is no longer the sovereign of the UK. It didn’t happen. Brussels has no authority.
Did the French government dissolve? Did the Italian government dissolve?
Is there a single pompous, arrogant politician anywhere in Europe who will state their national government ceased to exist when the EU started?
No. So lets stop pretending like the EU has an ounce of authority on any matter at all. Its a fraud.
That is why rebellions are on-going all over Europe, not just in the UK.
For sure it’s fascinating to game out the situation in the UK. But I think you might also find it fun to focus more on the EU part of the chessboard here. That speech by the AfP leader was dynamite (going into the origins of this whole fiasco being the EU’s unwillingness to cut Cameron some slack, and now threatening basically to treat them like Paraguay and Papua New Guinea instead of a close, large and friendly neighbour). Then there was the Nederland PM pointing out that this whole thing has to do with the unnecessary stress created by insisting that along with a customs and free trading zone, political union has also been imposed, and that many countries are chafing under this yoke.
In other words, I think we might be in for a surprise if any sort of request for extension is granted.
What would happen in the next five weeks, for example, i.e. before October 14th, if two or three senior EU nations were to formally announce their intention to deny any application for extension?
Really, there’s no time for a comprehensive post-Brexit treaty any more given previous attempts have fallen so far short. So either Brexit is cancelled, or the UK exits with only a framework ‘deal,’ but with positive expectations of working through things together well over the next 12-24 months or whatever during which period no new trade treaties with non-EU states will be signed so the current flow of goods and services can continue unimpeded.
The Irish issue will have to be solved and it sounds like there is movement.
Also, you might consider what leverage UK might have in terms of pressuring the EU to accept UK departure and begin to cooperate therein rather than be so bloody minded and rigid. Can US help exert pressure? Can we exert pressure on some member States such that they will provide assurances of an extension veto?
He still has the powers of a PM and as such is the chief negotiator who can threaten and offer many things without parliamentary approval or scrutiny. Yes, these can be reported on after October 15th, but meanwhile there is much he can do.
Finally, I wonder if the DUP are happy because although there might be a North Sea border in the offing, also a devolved Parliament there can be fast-tracked, and a more complete Constitution envisaged with four Empowered National Parliaments and the H o L’s reconfigured as the Senior House for the United Kingdom. Something real go-forward, positive, visionary – and fun.
New campaign slogan for the entire UK:
“Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory…”
Mish, If the DUP gets dumped then the Tories have gained an eternal and dangerous enemy. As I’ve said I am from Ulster catholic stock and have no brief for the DUP. These people are about the only civilians in England who are allowed a concealed carry. I don’t suggest that they will do anything violent but they are hardasses and will never foget.
But, DUP is what? 10 MPs? And they are not the only NI party, Sinn Fein has 7 MPs and independent 1. That makes them larger than the Lib Dems.
I respect your opinion, but I am of Catholic RoI stock and have a RoI passport. I do not think the troubles will be rekindled by Brexit, the sides are living together and ENJOYING the peace since Good Friday 1998. They cherish that far more than some theoretical departure from the EU. I say the Unionists are more open to reunification of Ireland than they are of leaving the EU with the UK because while they would never rejoin Ulster to Ireland without religious and peace guarantees – ensured by both Dublin and Brussels – they did nevertheless vote to remain in the EU by a hefty margin. Their MPs know it. So on balance a return to the troubles which nobody wants, in order to remain in the UK and taken out of the EU which was voted down heavily in NI? Or join the republic and stay in the EU and avoid the restart of the troubles?
Good Friday gives the province the right to hold a plebiscite at any time on the decision to leave the UK and rejoin Ireland. And frankly I think that the UK would whistle a sigh of relief if they did. Leo Varadkar less obvious. He would inherit a huge protestant constituency that can often be prickly and demanding, but he would also go down in Irish history as the hero that finally reunified Ireland for all time.
Mish, as a long time reader of this blog, it is hard for me to read these Brexit articles about Boris playing 4D chess without having to cringe all the time.
Please, switch back to writing about how Tesla will be bankrupt next year. At least those articles were somewhat entertaining; and I know that deep down there you did not believe it will happen and were just trolling.
It feels like confirmation bias at this point. BoJo had clear opportunities to strangle the extension bill and passed on all of them.
It’s past time to question his motives.
I am enjoying the political theater of the end times of Brexit (either way) and I also think that it is the one real story of historic import over the fate of the EU, I think the EU will fold under the weight of it’s socialist and bureaucratic rule without the ability to use the British taxpayer as a cash cow.
There is no more important story aside from NIRP right now regarding economics, and NIRP is a lot harder to discuss because economics does not have the terms, the syntax to discuss it. There is no road map for NIRP and NIRP is open ended till there is a global collapse. Brexit on the other hand has an end date by which time we will know if it is to be voided and the UK capitulates to the EU, or it becomes free of the EU. Any other outcome, such as delays that are open ended, or a deal that means essentially the same thing as remaining in all but name, are capitulation in all but name. This story is arguably the most important debate in British history at least since the 13 colonies declared independence. Maybe since the beheading of King John. Maybe in the entire British history because if they remain Britain will only exist in name. It will mark the end of sovereignty. Not just for the English.
King John was not beheaded you might mean Charles I. I suggest you read up about May 1940. Having said that I agree that you can’t have capitalism unless savers get a just reward.
Of course sorry, was just going fast and my mnemonic let me down.
Brexit is a lot more important than Tesla.
I never claimed that Brexit is not important topic.
The problem I have is that Mish portrays BoJo as some 4d chess player.
Even BoJo fanbois in UK understand that BoJo’s best skill is entertainment. Not chess.
I guess US BoJo fanbois and UK BoJo fanbois support BoJo for different reasons.