EU

by

No Deal is a Bad Deal

Is the full awfulness of a no-deal Brexit beginning to dawn on the Tory leadership and some of the hard line Brexiteers?

Yesterday Michale Gove “negotiated” the removal of the offending clauses in the Internal Market Bill. These clauses were a spectacular own goal, poisoning the waters of the negotiations with Europe and uniting a broad swathe of Conservative MP’s and Peers against the Government. You just cannot give Boris that amount of space in a tight negotiating box.

Apparently we also negotiated to allow officials from the EU to be permanently based in Northern Ireland. Was that a “concession” from the EU for the above!?

There were even noises coming out of the European Reform Group, according to the Telegraph as reported on the World at One yesterday, that they were “minded to accept” principles around the level playing field point if that secured a wider deal. Elevating concern about sovereignty over our fishing rights above that of the whole of the rest of our trade with Europe.

Earlier attempts to divide and rule as the UK tried to secure meetings with Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron failed and it was confirmed there is one negotiation team on the EU’s side.

It has always been unclear how a compromise could be arrived at. Of the three outstanding issues by far the most straightforward one should be fisheries. Whilst there is a lot of huffing and puffing about defending the UK’s control of its waters a negotiated settlement is a matter of practicalities. Scale of quotas, transition periods, areas of activity, market access, all provide a mix of issues which a pragmatic deal can be done on.

However, in relation to the other two key issues, guarantees of a level playing field and enforcement any possible progress is hampered, if not hobbled, by the notion of absolute sovereignty which, like pregnancy, is either there or not, which the hardline Brexiteers have created. It is very difficult to negotiate starting from this notion of sovereignty. It becomes a zero sum game which one side wins only if the other loses. This is the corner the Brexiteer’s have negotiated themselves into and it is difficult to see how it can be escaped from.

It may be in the logic of diplomacy but it is emblematic our Prime Minister is flying to Brussels to try to restart negotiations, not Ursula Von Der Leyen flying to London.

The recent report by the Independent Office for Budget Responsibility showing that a no deal Brexit would cost the UK 2% of its GDP, or £40bn, has probably focused minds as we struggle with Covid-19 and a weak Global economy.

There is only one certainty about what will happen on 31 December. There will be one of the most aggressive and nasty blame shifting games we have ever seen. It will either be between the EU and the British Government or between the British Government and the hard line Brexiteers in the Tory Party. Lets hope it is the latter because that will mean some element of Absolute British Sovereignty has been traded for a trade deal with our biggest and most important partner.

Michael Gove pulls plans to reveal ‘watered down’ Yellowhammer | Financial Times

Michael Gove has pulled plans to publish a “watered down” version of the government’s Operation Yellowhammer no-deal Brexit contingency plans, after ministers decreed that the findings would still alarm the public.

Mr Gove, minister for no-deal planning, had been expected to publish extracts of the document on Tuesday as part of his efforts to prepare the UK for the possibility of Brexit taking place without an agreement on October 31.

Government officials worked throughout the weekend overhauling the Operation Yellowhammer document, and Mr Gove had hoped to use the work to prove that he had a grip on potential no-deal problems.

via Michael Gove pulls plans to reveal ‘watered down’ Yellowhammer | Financial Times

Lance Corporal Jones continues to reassure the public,… “Don”t panic, don’t panic!”

by

Brexit means…?

Mrs May’s axiomatic definition reassured many after the referendum. For some it was a clear statement of a withdrawal from Europe and all its works, for some it was a democrat’s recognition of the will of the people, and for some there was room for hope about how terms would be agreed. There were doubtless some who thought Mrs May was bound to say something of the sort in the heat of the result but that perhaps over time cooler heads would prevail and a route to remaining in would be sought.

What was a stroke of genius in the immediate aftermath of the referendum is looking increasingly threadbare. In the intervening period the Tory party has managed to rub along without undue stress. There have been the occasional spats but a statement that can comprehend such a wide range of policy options from hard to soft Brexit does not provide enough of a target for anyone to secure purchase on for an argument.

At the moment the Conservatives are like a pack of hungry wolves looking for a carcass to fight over, growling at each other but unable to give vent to their growing frustration because no body of policy has emerged. No wonder Mrs May does not want to reveal her hand, it would likely be bitten off. It will be a feat of legerdemain worthy of Dynamo if she can carry out the negotiations without having to reveal what the deal is until it is done. Sadly, or perhaps fortunately, no one is that good.

Over the weeks and months to come, as statements crafted by the finest minds in the university of the bleedin’ obvious start to give way to substantive proposals these will be seized upon by hungry wolves on all sides of the debate. Depending on the level of compromise attempted the policy for Brexit will either enthuse some and outrage others or, more likely outrage all.

Worse for Mrs May, as all this is going on, the settled view of the majority of the electorate may start to change. If inflation and wage restraint take hold at the same time next year, those that voted for Brexit may have second thoughts. (Warning – votes for Brexit can go down as well as up). Given this an early election might be a good call, but then, who knows.

Mrs May seems to have a good way with words. Her promise to focus on those just about managing, her firm line on executive pay and footloose executives treating tax as optional were all launched with rhetorical flourish. The difficulty is when these things have to be delivered. Her political skills do not seem to match her verbal ones.

I cannot however feel much sympathy for the leader of a party whose leadership are able to transubstantiate infantile ambition into gravitas and lift party interest and power above the interests of the nation. A leadership which has almost destroyed the Union of the United Kingdom, indeed may still yet, and has put at risk the European project which, for all its faults, represents a way to unite in opposition to global forces which threaten the livelihood, and indeed the lives, of its citizens.

There is some way to go in the process of Brexit and better counsel may yet prevail. With all the challenges that exist in the world at the moment having the whole of the British political elite and public administration focused on taking the UK out of Europe is an error of political leadership of the highest order. Tony Blair’s premiership will rightly be forever blighted by the decision to take us into Iraq, David Cameron’s will surely be the same over taking us out of Europe.

The decision on Iraq casts a long shadow, down to the fate of the people of Aleppo and beyond. Brexit does not mean Brexit, it means a whole lot more. If the vote for Brexit was a protest vote against the incompetence of the political elite it cannot be dismissed as completely irrational.