Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

It's just that every time someone posts here an "it's because of Brexit" thing, you come in to say "it's not", and the guy listed a wide array of things negatively impacted by Brexit.

Because it's not

Maybe it's me being lawyerly but nine times out of ten it's not because of Brexit - Brexit's more an aggravating factor than a cause.

And I also think there is just a bit of British exceptionalism in a lot of that "Brexit did it" commentary that ignores the rest of the global economy still reeling from a pandemic that resulted in (according to the ILO) 80% of employed workers not working and then the subsequent re-opening, or a war in Europe between one of the world's largest energy producers invading one of the world's largest food producers - also, increasingly, climate shocks. In that context withdrawing from the EU and increased costs of trading with the EU may have a really severe impact on specific sectors and individual businesses, but that choice and Britain's policy doesn't even matter that much to Britain in the face of huge global economic shocks.

I don't want to get fully into psychopathologising British politics. But I will. I think in the same way as Brexiters don't actually want the detailed, technical, drawn out work of looking at what Britain can do better outside the EU - what they want is the libidinal thrill of overturning the rule book and rejecting Brussels. I think there's something similar on the hardcore remain side where what they want and are looking for is a moment of catharsis (and possibly vindication) from a Brexit caused crisis - and what they're getting are dispersed small impacts that cumulatively have an effect.

I heard Adam Tooze on a podcast recently talking about Britain in general and why it's worse than we think and he made this point. He basically said as a passionate remainer who thinks Brexit is a disastrously bad decision, he wishes he could say the cause for Britain's problems is Brexit - but it's not. Brexit might make it a bit worse, but it's deeper and wider than that and it pre-dates Brexit. And I basically agree with that.

[Tamas]

I mean, let's say the brakes on my car are really worn down and I am told to replace them but I decide no I am not going to.

Then some pedestrian steps in front of me, and due to the increased braking distance I cannot stop and I hit him.

Was it the old brakes which pushed that guy in front of me? No. Would I have avoided the accident if I replaced the brakes? Yes.

Ergo, while my decision to keep the crappy brakes did not hurl the guy in front of my car, it was the decision that ensured the accident would happen, so it is perfectly valid to highlight that as the key decision that led to the situation I find myself in.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and that's what I think is wrong. As the video you posted says the primary causes are a climate event and energy prices - to that I'd add the British supermarket business model.

He then moves into generalities about Brexit contributing to inflation, lower growth, lower Sterling, more bureaucracy on borders etc - all of that is obviously true. But none of it seems to be linked to this issue.

As we can see from Ireland as counter-factual. They're still in the EU and there's been huge trade diversion to avoid Britain as land bridge. But have similar supermarket businesses (sometimes literally the same supermarket) and concentration of supply chains which are hit by climate and energy - and are facing the exact same issue.

It seems to me that indicates that - as the guy in the video, every economics reporter and industry figures are saying - it's not really a Brexit issue.

Again there are clearly individual businesses and sectors that are particularly hurt by Brexit - I keep saying it but I think it is very possible Britain ends up with no car manufacturing industry. I think that will be directly because of Brexit. But I don't think Brexit is the cause of everything (or even most things).

I tried to think of how to work it in to the dodgy brakes analogy but I couldn't

[The Minsky Moment]

Maybe the analogy is that some idiot dumped a ton of sand on the car for laughs and giggles.  You were able to get the car out and it still runs, but it's not quite the same.  The other day the car broke down while driving to the supermarket.  On careful reflection that was probably because you neglected to do an oil change.  But did the sand damage help? Probably not.

[Sheilbh]

Right - and when you keep accidentally mowing people down because of the neglected brakes, or it keeps breaking down because you haven't changed the oil it's probably not helpful to have an unrelenting focus on how it's all the fault of the sand damage.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't understand all this and will have to message the RAC for advice 


Being poorer makes everything more difficult and the country is poorer than it would have been if we had remained in the EU. Therefore there is always some brexit component when the shit hits the fan, if only because of reduced resilience. But it can become tautological and obscure other factors. I think the tomato (bad weather and tight pricing) and egg shortages (bird flu) are examples of this.

[Admiral Yi]

Anecdotally Brexit seems to have severely hurt British fish exports.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on the politics of magical thinking, the SNP did agree to let the media into their hustings.

The first question was basically media bashing with all of them promising various measures to combat "misinformation" relating to independence.

They're offering a range of policies on post-independence issues. So for example on independence it runs from a consensual second referendum to a unilateral declaration of independence; on currency from long-term Sterlingisation leaving Scotland a rare developed country without a central bank, to setting up a new currency within two months of a UDI; and, on Europe, from joining EFTA to not just requesting the same status as Northern Ireland but "demanding" it (presumably from Westminster? ).

As I say - Brexit times ten but somehow many English liberals sympathise (again, I suspect, because they want catharsis).

[Admiral Yi]

What are hustings?

[Sheilbh]

Maybe like a mix between a debate and a town hall in US terms?

[Admiral Yi]

cool

[Barrister]

Maybe like a mix between a debate and a town hall in US terms?

I always thought it was just a fancy way of saying campaigning.

[Sheilbh]

I always thought it was just a fancy way of saying campaigning.

No it's a specific thing - there's a bit of debate but also questions from the audience.

There's specific rules about them by the Electoral Commission - basically I think if all candidates in that constituency are invited then they're considered to not favour any party or campaign so don't need to be reported. Those are often hosted by local organisations, charities, local media etc (I think the Quakers host quite a lot). If it is selective and favouring specific parties or campaigns then it has to be reported and the campaigns need to account for the costs. At the local level (and they sometimes get organised for council elections too) it's basically just all the candidates behind a trestle table and seats for the public in a community centre/local hall, church etc.

As well as local constituency ones you'll sometimes get them  on a specific issue organised by a charity/organisation in that sector where they'll get the party spokespeople.

For party leadership - and local MP selection - there will also be hustings organised by the party. Obviously for a national leadership role like leader of the SNP and First Minister it's not just an internal party matter so the media (rightly) expect to attend at least some of them.

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile Commons Privileges Committee have released their written evidence (including several new photos) on whether Johnson misled the house over partygate. There'll be public hearings of evidence in a fortnight (Johnson will give evidence) and then they'll prepare their findings and recommendations which can include suspension from the Commons:

Boris Johnson in battle for political future amid fresh evidence he misled MPs
Privileges committee document intended to help ex-PM prepare for questioning contains wealth of new information
Peter Walker and Rowena Mason
Fri 3 Mar 2023 22.24 GMT

Boris Johnson faces a battle for his future in parliament after a cross-party committee found there was significant evidence he misled MPs over lockdown parties, and that he and aides almost certainly knew at the time they were breaking rules.

The damning report includes one witness saying the then prime minister told a packed No 10 gathering in November 2020, when strict Covid restrictions were in force, that "this is probably the most unsocially distanced gathering in the UK right now".

Other new evidence includes a message from a No 10 official in April 2021, six months before the first reports of parties emerged, saying a colleague was "worried about leaks of PM having a piss-up – and to be fair I don't think it's unwarranted".

The details came in a report from the Commons privileges committee, a seven-strong group of MPs, four of them Conservatives, which has been tasked with discovering whether Johnson misled parliament in denying any wrongdoing, and then if this was deliberate.

While the 24-page document is only an interim report, intended to give Johnson notice of lines of inquiry before he testifies later this month, its damning findings and wealth of newly released information make grim reading for the former prime minister and his allies.

"There is evidence that the House of Commons may have been misled in the following ways, which the committee will explore," the report said, giving four examples, all backed up by lengthy footnotes.

A formal finding that Johnson deliberately misled parliament could see him suspended. Under parliamentary rules, an exclusion of 14 days or longer would mean Johnson's constituents could seek a recall petition to remove him as their MP, a viable occurrence given the slim majority in his west London seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

Johnson – who was forced out as prime minister last summer after Conservative MPs tired of repeated controversies – responded to the report with an immediate and orchestrated fightback, seeking to discredit the findings and the committee.

Aided by statements from supportive MPs, Johnson said it was "surreal to discover that the committee proposes to rely on evidence culled and orchestrated by Sue Gray, who has just been appointed chief of staff to the leader of the Labour party".

Gray, the senior Cabinet Office official who led an internal inquiry into the events, which reported last May, quit on Thursday to become Keir Starmer's chief of staff, prompting accusations from Johnson and his supporters that her report – which Johnson accepted in full at the time – could not now be trusted.

A spokesperson for the privileges committee dismissed Johnson's arguments, saying the findings were "not based on the Sue Gray report" but on witness accounts and evidence supplied by the government.

In a subsequent TV interview, Johnson insisted the committee had uncovered "absolutely nothing to show that any adviser of mine or civil servant warned me in advance that events might be against the rules; nothing to say that afterwards they thought it was against the rules; nothing to show that I myself believed or was worried that something was against the rules".

He added: "That for me is a pretty astonishing gap given the huge amount of stuff that they have."

In contrast, the MPs argue there did seem to be contemporaneous awareness that repeated social gatherings were unlikely to be within the rules, and that the supposed assurances Johnson cited about rules being followed was simply his media team trying to explain events to journalists.

The account of the November 2020 event, when restrictions barred indoor gatherings of two or more people and mandated distancing of 2 metres, says Johnson gave a speech to an audience "standing four or five deep".

The report also says Johnson is likely to have witnessed the regular Friday night lockdown drinks events in the No 10 press office, and that a visit by the committee proved there was a line of sight from his route back towards his flat.

In November 2021, as the first reports of parties emerged, No 10 officials discussed with Johnson's then director of communications, Jack Doyle, how to respond. Asked whether "a generic line" might be best, Doyle replied: "'Covid rules have been followed at all times' or something."

Internal messages from No 10 staff shared with the committee show them trying to work out "our best possible defence" when evidence emerged of the gatherings a year later.

In response to a suggestion they described an event as "reasonably necessary for work purposes", Johnson's then director of communications said: "I'm struggling to come up with a way this one is in the rules in my head."

There are also apparent signs that Johnson and his then government tried to impede the committee's work by withholding or redacting evidence.

The MPs wrote to Johnson on 14 July last year seeking necessary materials, but the response in August was of "documents which were so heavily redacted as to render them devoid of any evidential value", the report said.

Some material had been redacted even though it was already in the public domain, it added. Unredacted material was provided in November, when Rishi Sunak was in No 10.

Another section detailed that when Johnson was asked personally to submit evidence he said he "held no relevant material". Six months later, in response to another request, his solicitors supplied the committee with 46 WhatsApp messages between Johnson and five other people.

The report, which emerged without prior notice, followed days of focus on another aspect of Johnson's record in power, with the release of a vast trove of WhatsApp messages about the response to Covid to the Telegraph newspaper.

A final conclusion is expected to take months, with Johnson expected to give evidence in the week beginning 20 March.

Angela Rayner, Labour's deputy leader, said the report was "absolutely damning on the conduct of Boris Johnson, not just in the crime but the cover-up".

Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, called for Sunak to "immediately and publicly commit to backing the committee" if it finds against Johnson.

Allies of Johnson released statements in support of him via his spokesperson, including Nadine Dorries, Mark Jenkinson, Peter Bone and Simon Clarke.

Clarke, a former cabinet minister, said Gray's appointment to Labour meant there should be "an urgent inquiry" before the privileges committee inquiry continued.

Halting the process would, however, be difficult, as it would need a Commons vote. It would be politically very risky for Sunak to try to whip Conservative MPs into backing such a plan.

The four specific allegations are:

32. There is evidence that the House of Commons may have been misled in the following ways which the Committee will explore:

a) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that no rules or guidance had been broken in No. 10. The Second Permanent Secretary and the Metropolitan Police have already come to the conclusion that was not correct, including in relation to specific gatherings for which Mr Johnson asserted this was the case.52

b) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson failed to tell the House about his own knowledge of the gatherings where the rules or guidance had been broken. That is because there is evidence that he attended them.53

c) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson said on 8 December 2021 that he relied upon repeated assurances that the rules had not been broken. Initial evidence to us suggested Mr Johnson was assured by two individuals who had worked at No. 10 at the time that they did not think the gathering of 18 December 2020 had broken Covid rules.54 However, we note that:

i) Mr Johnson had personal knowledge about gatherings which he could have disclosed, although his personal knowledge about the gathering of 18 December 2020 may have been limited as he did not personally attend.

ii) We have received evidence that there was no assurance about any gathering's compliance with the guidance that was in place at the time (as opposed to compliance with the Covid rules).55

iii) The purported assurances were only about the gathering of 18 December 2020, not more generally about No. 10's compliance with the rules and guidance. We have received no evidence that an assurance was provided in relation to the specific gatherings of 20 May 2020, 19 June 2020, 13 November 2020, 27 November 2020 and 14 January 2021.

iv) The context for the initial purported assurance was in response to a media inquiry and the assertion that Covid rules were followed was initially developed as a media line to take.56

v) The initial purported assurance came from the Director of Communications at No. 10, a special adviser appointed by Mr Johnson, not a permanent civil servant.

vi) The purported assurances consisted only of what those individuals themselves believed about the compliance of the gathering of 18 December 2020 with the rules.

Whether those who gave these purported assurances to Mr Johnson ever intended for him to rely upon them in the House, and whether it was appropriate for Mr Johnson to do so, is a question the Committee will want to consider.

d) It may have been misled when Mr Johnson gave the impression that there needed to be an investigation by the Second Permanent Secretary to establish whether the rules and guidance had been broken before he could answer questions to the House. While repeatedly making that statement to the House he appears to have had personal knowledge that he did not reveal.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The temptation for some of these MPs to say "do bears shit in the woods?" when quizzed by reporters must be very high.