Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Looking like Keir Starmer shall be running and is the favourite.
This pleases me.

I am not a fan. He was a bad DPP. I think he's quite smarmy. But it would be very Labour to all think it's about time (after two Tory women PMs) that Labour has a female leader, has lots of interesting qualified candidates come forward, for the middle-aged man to win.

Bizarre on both counts.
Neither France nor Germany supported the US position in Iraq nor sent troops in the Iraq war.  Blair's commitment of troops was part of a policy to have an extra-EU foreign policy with the transatlantic "special relationship" as a key pillar.  For opponents of Blair's position, it seems the obvious lesson is that Britain should have hewed closer to EU muddling/non-action position rather than the independent foreign policy option.  Trump teaches the same lesson - the UK cannot count of the US as a reliable partner.  Both episodes show up the challenge of trying to act alone as a middling at best power.  Trump in particular has attempted a divide and conquer approach to Europe which mostly has failed - intended intimidation targets like the Danes blow him off knowing the EU has their back. On trade, the existence of the EU bloc has stiffened the ability to respond to US pressure - the tariff blow ups might have played differently if e.g. France had to act alone.

I don't think it's particularly bizarre. Iraq is now perceived to be a disastrous war, backed by Parliament and a lying Prime Minister who politicised intelligence. I think it's corrosive influence in the collapse of trust in institutions/experts and the sort of post-truth world is quite significant. Up there, from a UK perspective, with the expenses scandal.

More widely, from my understanding of the polling Leave voters (as opposed to the Leave leaders) are proud of Britain's imperial past but actually isolationist. Remainers, like me, want the UK to punch above it's weight, to be engaged in the world - and all of the stuff about how actually the EU enhances our ability to have a more significant role is preaching to the converted. Leave voters don't want to act alone as a middling power - they don't really want to act.

This is another reason I think the EU would do well to think what it wants out of a future relationship because I think there is a risk that we pull back from our European/NATO commitments in the coming years, though not immediately.

[Tamas]

I think Sheilbh might be over-simplifying it.

I have often seen Remainer views that Britain needs to come to terms with her reduced role in the world and the refusal of this is one of the reasons for Brexit.

I think like with most other thing, the leave-remain divide crosses other political boundaries.

IMHO it is mostly about whether being able to understand how the world works. If you don't you want Leave.

[Josquius]

I am not a fan. He was a bad DPP. I think he's quite smarmy. But it would be very Labour to all think it's about time (after two Tory women PMs) that Labour has a female leader, has lots of interesting qualified candidates come forward, for the middle-aged man to win.

Sure. All else being equal a female leader would be good.
But we shouldn't disqualify someone just for being a man.

I've no idea how he was in his time as DPP. I don't think many non-lawyers do. He really knows his stuff when it comes to Europe however and is very well placed as a left-friendly centrist.

[Tamas]

Queen's speech ongoing (yes, it is that time of the month again). Interesting bit, as reported by The Guardian:

The Queen turns to the constitution.

A Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission will be established. Work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

Sometimes the Queen's speech is significant for what it does not say. This tells us very little about what the government is planning, but there was a passage in the Conservative manifesto that triggered suspicions that Boris Johnson has grand ambitions in this area. It said:

"After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts; the functioning of the royal prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people ... In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates."

Ministers have said very little about what this means in practice.

Now, I think there's plenty to fine-tune in the British constitution but I am worried to have Bo... Dominic Cummings do it.

[The Larch]

Bizarre on both counts.
Neither France nor Germany supported the US position in Iraq nor sent troops in the Iraq war.  Blair's commitment of troops was part of a policy to have an extra-EU foreign policy with the transatlantic "special relationship" as a key pillar.  For opponents of Blair's position, it seems the obvious lesson is that Britain should have hewed closer to EU muddling/non-action position rather than the independent foreign policy option.  Trump teaches the same lesson - the UK cannot count of the US as a reliable partner.  Both episodes show up the challenge of trying to act alone as a middling at best power.  Trump in particular has attempted a divide and conquer approach to Europe which mostly has failed - intended intimidation targets like the Danes blow him off knowing the EU has their back. On trade, the existence of the EU bloc has stiffened the ability to respond to US pressure - the tariff blow ups might have played differently if e.g. France had to act alone.

I don't think it's particularly bizarre. Iraq is now perceived to be a disastrous war, backed by Parliament and a lying Prime Minister who politicised intelligence. I think it's corrosive influence in the collapse of trust in institutions/experts and the sort of post-truth world is quite significant. Up there, from a UK perspective, with the expenses scandal.

The expenses scandal such a corrosive influence, on par with Iraq? Really?

More widely, from my understanding of the polling Leave voters (as opposed to the Leave leaders) are proud of Britain's imperial past but actually isolationist. Remainers, like me, want the UK to punch above it's weight, to be engaged in the world - and all of the stuff about how actually the EU enhances our ability to have a more significant role is preaching to the converted. Leave voters don't want to act alone as a middling power - they don't really want to act.

This is another reason I think the EU would do well to think what it wants out of a future relationship because I think there is a risk that we pull back from our European/NATO commitments in the coming years, though not immediately.

Do you seriously see the UK going all Splendid Isolation after Brexit? Also, the EU has already established that it wants a close relationship with the UK after Brexit on secutiry, law enforcement and so on. Was that what you meant?

[Zoupa]

This is another reason I think the EU would do well to think what it wants out of a future relationship because I think there is a risk that we pull back from our European/NATO commitments in the coming years, though not immediately.

So once again, the EU better coddle the UK or else it'll take his ball and go home?

No thanks.

[Josquius]

The EU is best served playing an ambivalent "do whatever you want" part.
If the UK is sane and wants a Swiss style arrangement then cool. If it wants to play North Korea then knock yourself out.
Just give the UK the rope and let it do what it will.

I'm pessimistic on the UKs odds of choosing the sane option here. But if the EU can show it did offer that and its purely down to the Tories that the UK has fucked itself, then down the line there could be hope for England to rebuild.

[Tamas]

The EU is best served playing an ambivalent "do whatever you want" part.
If the UK is sane and wants a Swiss style arrangement then cool. If it wants to play North Korea then knock yourself out.
Just give the UK the rope and let it do what it will.

I'm pessimistic on the UKs odds of choosing the sane option here. But if the EU can show it did offer that and its purely down to the Tories that the UK has fucked itself, then down the line there could be hope for England to rebuild.

I don't see why the EU should look at this from any other direction than a strictly EU-centric one, which, importantly, no longer includes the UK, on the latter's insistence. Sure, the UK turning into Norway is by far the best outcome for the EU, but if the UK refuses to play ball on that, then the EU will be actively disinterested in helping "England rebuild".

If the UK refuses to cooperate on regulations etc (i.e. refuses the Norway option) than it will do so to use its strength and location to compete with the EU in a race to the bottom. The EU will not enable that. UK/England will be on its own, a situation that has been strongly requested by the British electorate on 3 separate occasions.

[Sheilbh]

The expenses scandal such a corrosive influence, on par with Iraq? Really?

Yeah. I have no factual basis for this - beyond my gut - but I think it's more corrosive. Expenses destroyed any respect for Parliament or MPs which is part of the reason we're here but also part of the reason I think there's a big divergence in view on, say, John Bercow.

The really striking thing about Iraq is people believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Blair government manipulated the intelligence services to back the war. We'd never had public comment from the intelligence services before - so I think that was fairly damaging to "experts".

Do you seriously see the UK going all Splendid Isolation after Brexit? Also, the EU has already established that it wants a close relationship with the UK after Brexit on secutiry, law enforcement and so on. Was that what you meant?

The EU says that but it's the same as the UK says that, I don't think either party has actually worked out what they mean by that.

But I don't think the UK will join another military intervention in the next few decades - the peak of Ed Miliband's popularity was when he stopped intervention in Syria. So I think we will disengage in that way. I also think it will be a little like the US. We will back NATO in theory but I think there will be increasing questions around why we have so many troops in the Baltics and Germany.

I don't think is what this government want or will try to do, and I don't think it's necessarily splendid isolation. I think we'll just become more like Germany in terms of our moral commitments that aren't really backed up with deployments/support, even if we still spend money on defence. And I suspect if we're not locked into a wider relationship with the EU, I think there's a strong risk we'll become a fairly supine, pro-China country - we see similar stuff with Australia and New Zealand and I wouldn't be shocked if we go down that route.

But I don't think that's some sort of outrage to the status or imperial ambitions of leave voters. In many ways I think they have a more realistic perception what the UK can be on the world stage than Remainers like, like Tony Blair, like Peter Mandelson, like David Cameron.

So once again, the EU better coddle the UK or else it'll take his ball and go home?

No, that's far too active. I don't think it'll be a conscious choice of UK governments, I think it's the drift of public opinion - I mean I can't see the Labour party, after Corbyn, reverting to a clearly pro-NATO, pro-common security policy any time soon. But I think UK governments will generally respect/not break treaties they're in - so if the UK-EU treaty includes security that's more protection against that drift.

I don't see why the EU should look at this from any other direction than a strictly EU-centric one, which, importantly, no longer includes the UK, on the latter's insistence. Sure, the UK turning into Norway is by far the best outcome for the EU, but if the UK refuses to play ball on that, then the EU will be actively disinterested in helping "England rebuild".

But this is a point I've mentioned before. It's easy to unite around: Irish border/single market, citizens' rights and bills. What is the common EU vision of the future relationship? I think the EU got their sequencing agreed to and they pre-loaded the (from their perspective) easy stuff, possibly, partly, because they were listening to too many Remainers like Mandelson and Blair who were saying this could be reversed and there was lots of Bregret.

The more diffiult and more divisive question is what now? I'm not sure there's a UK answer but I certainly don't see an EU one either yet. What is the end-goal that the EU wants? And, which is my point about the geostrategic element, all of the models are primarily about economics (Norway, Canada, Switzerland). Is that the future relationship the EU fundamentally wants with the UK? Or is that because it's easier to drive from the Commission rather than political choices by governments?

If the UK refuses to cooperate on regulations etc (i.e. refuses the Norway option) than it will do so to use its strength and location to compete with the EU in a race to the bottom. The EU will not enable that. UK/England will be on its own, a situation that has been strongly requested by the British electorate on 3 separate occasions.

The key with the Norway option is freedom of movement and the role of the ECJ. As I say I think there are choices and trade-offs on this for the EU and the UK. My own suspicion is Johnson will betray hardline Brexiteers and basically align on regulations. But he has the biggest Tory vote since 1987 so he has a mandate to crash out and that was something people voted for, which I think is a significant difference with May or Johnson until this election. It's in his control (from a UK politial perspective) in a way it hasn't been before.

The EU is best served playing an ambivalent "do whatever you want" part.

I mean surely the EU is best served by identifying what it's goal is and working to achieve it?

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile in Scotland - what's amazing is this isn't even front-page in the UK section of the BBC (we've got Queen's Speech (London), the Independent Group (London), Labour Leadership (London/Norwich), stabbing attack (London), train delays (Manchester! ) and two high court cases (London)), in terms of appreciating how excited the national media are by the union

Scottish independence: Sturgeon requests powers for referendum

Scotland's first minister has called on the UK government to negotiate a transfer of powers to Holyrood to allow another referendum on independence.

Nicola Sturgeon said there was an "unarguable" mandate for a new vote after her SNP won 48 of Scotland's 59 seats in last week's general election.

A document containing her arguments and draft legislation to transfer powers has been sent to the UK government.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains opposed to holding another referendum.

He has argued that the result of the independence referendum in 2014 - when voters backed remaining in the UK by 55% to 45% - should be respected.

And the government used the Queen's Speech at Westminster to say that the "integrity and prosperity" of the UK is of the "utmost importance".

But Ms Sturgeon warned the prime minister that a "flat no" to her request for another referendum would not be the end of the matter.

The first minister says she wants to hold indyref2 in the second half of 2020, and believes the election result has made the case for this "overwhelmingly clear".

But she wants the UK government to agree to a so-called section 30 order, which would give the Scottish Parliament the power to hold a referendum and put its legality beyond doubt - as happened ahead of the 2014 referendum.

And Ms Sturgeon has ruled out the possibility of holding an unofficial referendum similar to the one in Catalonia in 2017.

The pro-independence SNP won a landslide in Scotland in the general election, while the Conservatives lost seven of their 13 seats north of the border despite winning a big majority across the UK as a whole.

Ms Sturgeon has published a paper arguing that "consensus is growing by the day" in Scotland for a second referendum, and that there is a "clear mandate for this nation to choose its own future".

In a statement at her official Bute House residence, she said: "We are therefore today calling for the UK government to negotiate and agree the transfer of power that would put beyond doubt the Scottish Parliament's right to legislate for a referendum on independence.

"I anticipate that in the short term we will simply hear a restatement of the UK government's opposition. But they should be under no illusion that this will be an end of the matter."

The paper published by Ms Sturgeon includes draft legislation which would give Holyrood the power to call referendums, although she said she was open to negotiations about the details of how this would work.

She said: "It is a fundamental democratic principle that decisions on Scotland's constitutional future should rest with the people who live here.

"The Scottish government has a clear democratic mandate to offer people a choice on that future in an independence referendum, and the UK government has a democratic duty to recognise that.

"The mandate we have to offer the Scottish people a choice over their future is, by any normal standard of democracy, unarguable."

And in a letter to the prime minister, Ms Sturgeon said Mr Johnson had "committed to engaging seriously with our proposals" in their telephone conversation last Friday.

She added: "I believe that on this - as on any issue - you have a duty to do so in a considered and reasonable manner. I therefore look forward to discussing matters further with you in the New Year.

The move comes on the same day as the devolved Scottish Parliament passed legislation that could help pave the way to a referendum.

The Referendums (Scotland) Bill passed on Thursday afternoon with the backing of the SNP and Scottish Greens, although Holyrood's three pro-union parties - the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems - voted against it.

The legislation sets the general rules for any referendum, but a separate bill would need to be passed for any new independence ballot.

While the polls have narrowed in recent months, they still generally give a slender lead to the pro-UK side.

The Conservative election campaign in Scotland was centred on opposition to independence and a referendum, and the prime minister told Ms Sturgeon in a telephone conversation last week that he "remains opposed" to a new vote.

Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said Ms Sturgeon and the SNP "should concentrate on improving Scotland's hospitals and schools rather than trying to re-run an independence referendum they promised would be a once in a generation event".

Mr Gove added: "I think on that basis we should respect the referendum result and politicians across the United Kingdom should be concentrating on the issues that really matter to people: improving the NHS, fighting crime and helping to improve education.

'The Scottish government have a lot on their plate. My friends and family in Scotland want them to concentrate on improving the NHS, making sure Scottish schools are better. I want to work with the Scottish government to make sure that Scottish people's lives are better."

But his colleague Andrew Mitchell, a Conservative MP and former government minister under David Cameron, told the BBC it would be "extremely difficult" for the prime minister to continue to "resist the strong argument" for people to have another vote on independence,

He added: "I think it will stand for now, and I think it will stand until the end of the Brexit process and the new settlement is clear. They can resist it for a bit, but it would not be possible to resist it forever."

I think the statement's key point is:

In this context the question is often posed to me – what will you do if Boris Johnson says no?

As I have said before, I will consider all reasonable options to secure Scotland's right to self-determination.

In the New Year, I will also ask the Scottish Parliament to back the case we are publishing today, and we will work to grow and deepen the coalition of support for Scotland's right to choose.

But the document we are publishing today turns the question on its head.

It is for the Prime Minister to defend why he believes the UK is not a voluntary union of equal nations.

It is for the Prime Minister to set out why he does not believe people in Scotland have the right to self-determination.

It is for the Prime Minister to explain why he believes it is acceptable to ignore election after election in Scotland and to over-ride a democratic mandate stronger than the one he claims for his Brexit deal.

The Conservatives' only response to this, so far, has been the referendum result in 2014.

They use that result to justify doing whatever they like to Scotland no matter what people here think and no matter how much damage they cause to people's lives.

The Tories are in effect saying to people here that democracy in Scotland stopped the day we voted No in 2014.

That cannot and will not hold.

In 2014 a majority of people in Scotland did indeed vote No.

But in 2016 an overwhelming majority voted to remain in the European Union.

Despite that overwhelming vote, within a matter of weeks the Tories intend to remove Scotland from the EU.

[Valmy]

So if they vote yes will democracy stop or will they have periodic elections to rejoin the UK?

[Sheilbh]

So if they vote yes will democracy stop or will they have periodic elections to rejoin the UK?

If a re-union party wins I've no doubt they'll have a referendum - subject to consent to re-joining from the UK.

I can't see that ever happening - or any party running on a re-union platform, but you never know.

[Zoupa]

Sheilbh, I think you overestimate the level of goodwill left in the EU towards the UK.

There are 515 million people in the EU27. A huge majority don't care, a substantial portion don't like you, and close to 100% are quite fed up and bored with Brexit. Frankly, it took way too long and wasted enough of everybody's time.

Brussels has committees and planners for everything under the sun. I'm sure they'll think of something eventually. I don't think it's a high priority, nor should it be.

[Sheilbh]

Why should Brussels lead on this? It's a political and strategic decision which should be made by elected politicians - just like European policy towards Russia, Turkey, North Africa or any other neighbour - even if Brussels leads on the negotiations. Fundamentally there are political decisions here and I think this stage about the "future relationship" is when they have to be made, they can't be delayed anymore by sequencing.

I also don't think Europe's wasted much time on this. Every meeting of the council there's a statement that they spent twenty minutes getting briefed by the PM and Barnier and then moved on to more important issues. I think that's true and on decisions the UK hasn't been an obstructive member. I think the big issue at the minute is that France and Germany (with differing bases of support) have really different opinions on the direction of Europe, so Europe is, a little bit, on pause.

And I agree, it's the same here. There's huge appetite just to end it, but for both sides this is the point when there are choices to be made.

[Valmy]

So if they vote yes will democracy stop or will they have periodic elections to rejoin the UK?

If a re-union party wins I've no doubt they'll have a referendum - subject to consent to re-joining from the UK.

I can't see that ever happening - or any party running on a re-union platform, but you never know.

Too much nationalist hatred for the rest of Britain in Scotland?