Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I find it hard to believe anyone with the brains to get into a position as an MP genuinely believes a hard brexit is the best option for the country.
The best option for their party, for their friends, for select businesses, for them personally, yes.
But nobody with an ounce of wit can possibly think hard Brexit will benefit the country as a whole.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The trouble with a soft brexit is that it pleases nobody. Not a good idea in a country with regular elections.

[Syt]

You guys underestimate the potential of the UK economy once it's unshackled from the EU dictate and returns to it's natural Victorian order. 

[Sheilbh]

I find it hard to believe anyone with the brains to get into a position as an MP genuinely believes a hard brexit is the best option for the country.
The best option for their party, for their friends, for select businesses, for them personally, yes.
But nobody with an ounce of wit can possibly think hard Brexit will benefit the country as a whole.

I think this has been a problem on the sort-of progressive side of UK politics for a few years that it can't imagine someone could support right-wing, conservative policies in good faith so there must be some perfidious interest going on. I think 90% of MPs genuinely believe that what they're arguing for is in the best interests of the country - even the hard Brexiteers. Edit: And the issue with this is when the progressive side of UK politics keeps losing elections for the last 10 years, rather than examine why the other side have won it has tended to retreat into a slightly conspiratorial idea that it's all the media, or it's false consciousness, or these right-wing politicians keep on hood-winking people into acting against their interest. It's time that'd be better spent identifying how those politicians have convinced people this is in their interests.

I mean Raab, Patel and others round the cabinet table wrote a whole book about this sort of stuff, Britannia Unchained. I don't think it's an act or cynical self-interest.

Although your brains requirement is fair and does exclude Mark Francois (one minor blessing of Brexit having happened is that Francois is on the TV less and probably back where he belongs, bellowing complaints in a Toby Carvery).

[Tamas]

I think Sheilbh is shifting to the right as he gets older.


Fair points on expecting Johnson to avoid a gamble, and on soft-brexit being risky on account of displeasing everyone, however.

[Sheilbh]

I think Sheilbh is shifting to the right as he gets older.

Again - I think they're wrong.

I just think you have to try and understand people's motivations, not just dismiss them as knaves or fools for not agreeing with you. Most people are acting for reasons just as sincere as any of us are, even if they passionately disagree with us.

The flip-side is if I see someone who keeps on saying racist, anti-semitic or homophobic stuff I'm less inclined to think they're playing to the gallery or trying to win the votes. I strongly suspect they might just be a racist, anti-semite or homophobe

[Josquius]

I find it hard to believe anyone with the brains to get into a position as an MP genuinely believes a hard brexit is the best option for the country.
The best option for their party, for their friends, for select businesses, for them personally, yes.
But nobody with an ounce of wit can possibly think hard Brexit will benefit the country as a whole.

I think this has been a problem on the sort-of progressive side of UK politics for a few years that it can't imagine someone could support right-wing, conservative policies in good faith so there must be some perfidious interest going on. I think 90% of MPs genuinely believe that what they're arguing for is in the best interests of the country - even the hard Brexiteers. Edit: And the issue with this is when the progressive side of UK politics keeps losing elections for the last 10 years, rather than examine why the other side have won it has tended to retreat into a slightly conspiratorial idea that it's all the media, or it's false consciousness, or these right-wing politicians keep on hood-winking people into acting against their interest. It's time that'd be better spent identifying how those politicians have convinced people this is in their interests.

I mean Raab, Patel and others round the cabinet table wrote a whole book about this sort of stuff, Britannia Unchained. I don't think it's an act or cynical self-interest.

Although your brains requirement is fair and does exclude Mark Francois (one minor blessing of Brexit having happened is that Francois is on the TV less and probably back where he belongs, bellowing complaints in a Toby Carvery).

The trouble with "they think what they are doing is for the best" is that what these extremists think is a desirable outcome is anything but.
It's not like liberals who have different beliefs on the best way to reach an end result where everyone is rich and happy and free. The extremists actively want to create a world that is not a desirable place to live for most people. It's not just their methods that are questionable, it's their target.

And yes. The right question is why they're succesful in conning people into voting against their interests. There is a tenancy from some to just blame the media et al but I don't think this is as dominant as some would paint it. That sort of thing usually comes from the far left, the left in general are more on top of things.

[Legbiter]

I find it hard to believe anyone with the brains to get into a position as an MP genuinely believes a hard brexit is the best option for the country.
The best option for their party, for their friends, for select businesses, for them personally, yes.
But nobody with an ounce of wit can possibly think hard Brexit will benefit the country as a whole.

I think this has been a problem on the sort-of progressive side of UK politics for a few years that it can't imagine someone could support right-wing, conservative policies in good faith so there must be some perfidious interest going on.

Which is kinda funny because regular everyday people you interact with day to day are kinda right-wing or kinda left-wing and see things differently. Since the center started losing elections in the US and Europe the political/pundit moron class has responded as the absolute cringelord losers they are by reclassifying the entire universe of political thought outside of Merkel and Jeb! as some sort of nefarious Putinism. Throw in the constant catastrophism, mind-reading, the smug sense of superiority and it's hard not to loath these loser assholes even more.

[Zoupa]

The initial shock will be over and we will probably have returned to (lower) growth, but we're not going to be in recession for four years. The impact of Brexit is going to be long term lower growth than the rest of Europe, not a great depression and people might not notice in the first few years.

And I think the shock is part of the appeal for the government/Tories. If you're a de-regulating, big spending Tory PM then there's almost nothing more appealing than a big economic shock because it's the perfect reason to justify splashing the cash and cutting regulations.

Those are some rosy spectacles you got. The EU will not sign a Canada-style treaty with the UK. The probabilities is you guys go to WTA rules, and overnight EVERYTHING costs a lot more, everywhere. That's a 10 year recession.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which is kinda funny because regular everyday people you interact with day to day ]are kinda right-wing or kinda left-wing are apathetic and don't give a crap about politics and see things differently.

FYP

[Sheilbh]

Those are some rosy spectacles you got. The EU will not sign a Canada-style treaty with the UK. The probabilities is you guys go to WTA rules, and overnight EVERYTHING costs a lot more, everywhere. That's a 10 year recession.

Then I agree it'll be no deal because the UK government doesn't want anything more than an FTA.

But, you know, the Great Depression lasted about three and a half years before there started to be a recovery. The UK equivalent is the recession in the 20s which lasted 3 years. You'd need to go back to the 19th century for anything longer.

There's not going to be a four or ten year recession. There'll be an initial shock, and then a recovery and maybe a double dip. Some areas and some sectors will be hit worse than others, but they are generally smaller areas of the UK's economy like manufacturing and agriculture - but it's not going to be evenly spread. And as I say the difference between an FTA and no deal seems to me a lot smaller than the difference between what's happening now and an FTA - so that shock is coming regardless.

The real hit will be because over the long term the UK will (probably) grow at a significantly slower pace than the rest of Europe. We will become poorer over the long term.

My point is if you're in government and you can control the timing - you'd want the shock to happen in the first year of your term, or basically a lot closer to the last election than the next election.

And if you want to implement radical structural reforms (which could be left or right wing) there's not many better excuses to make it politically easy than a shock.

[Sheilbh]

The trouble with "they think what they are doing is for the best" is that what these extremists think is a desirable outcome is anything but.
It's not like liberals who have different beliefs on the best way to reach an end result where everyone is rich and happy and free. The extremists actively want to create a world that is not a desirable place to live for most people. It's not just their methods that are questionable, it's their target.

I don't think it's desirable because I don't agree with them, that's fine. But I don't think they're doing it (generally - there's always a few grifters) to enrich themselves or their mates. And I think that sort of thinking can be a trap because it means that instead of arguing why they're wrong, more time is spent on their motivations and looking for puppet masters etc.

And yes. The right question is why they're succesful in conning people into voting against their interests. There is a tenancy from some to just blame the media et al but I don't think this is as dominant as some would paint it. That sort of thing usually comes from the far left, the left in general are more on top of things.

The last election was all about Workington. I remembered the 2015 election it was Nuneaton that was the type of seat Miliband needed to win. It went Tory in the 80s, then back to Labour until 2010. Labour needed about 5,000 votes to win it back. It was the bell-weather constituency.

Last election in Nuneaton the Tories won over 60% of the vote and Labour would need over 13,000 votes to win it back. And that just gets you back to swing seats in 2010-5.

If the left is on top of things it needs to work out what's happened in Nuneaton and there's loads of constituencies like it. And I don't really see much evidence that that's happening, because that sort of change doesn't just happen if there's a con.

FYP

Agreed. There's a tweet bot that tweets real people's voting decisions from the British Social Attitudes Survey and it's astonishing. I love how messy and chaotic voters are. In the run-up to the Iowa caucus I saw something from a journalist about a voter who caucused for Bernie in 16, then voted for Trump, wants Medicare for All but supports Buttigieg and, if he doesn't get the nomination, will vote for Trump. It is majestic.

[Sheilbh]

Sir Philip Rutnam, the top official at the Home Office has resigned with this statement, I can't think of anything like it:

I have this morning resigned as permanent secretary of the Home Office. I take this decision with great regret after a career of 33 years.

I am making this statement now because I will be issuing a claim against the Home Office for constructive dismissal. In the last 10 days I have been the target of a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign. It has been alleged that I have briefed the media against the home secretary. This, along with many other claims, is completely false.

The home secretary categorically denied any involvement in this campaign to the Cabinet Office. I regret I do not believe her. She has not made the efforts I would expect to dissociate herself from the comments.

Even despite this campaign, I was willing to effect a reconciliation with the home secretary, as requested by the cabinet secretary on behalf of the prime minister. But despite my efforts to engage with her, Priti Patel has made no effort to engage with me to discuss this.

I believe that these events give me very strong grounds to claim constructive unfair dismissal, and I will be pursuing that claim in the courts. My experience has been extreme but I consider there is evidence it was part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

One of my duties as permanent secretary was to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of our 35,000 people. This created tension with the home secretary, and I have encouraged her to change her behaviours.

I have received allegations that her conduct has included shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands – behaviour that created fear and that needed some bravery to call out.

I know that resigning in this way will have serious implications for me personally – the Cabinet Office offered me a financial settlement that would have avoided this outcome.

I am aware that there will continue to be briefing against me now I have made this decision, but I am hopeful that at least it may not now be directed towards my colleagues or the department.

This has been a very difficult decision but I hope that my stand may help in maintaining the quality of government in our country, which includes hundreds of thousands of civil servants, loyally dedicated to delivering this government's agenda.

I will make no further comment at this stage.

Having said that it feels like someone's been running briefing campaigns against him and Priti Patel - probably different people in her team. So I could be wrong but I suspect if this does go to court all of the parties are going to end up looking pretty ugly

Edit: And reason for that. I think Priti Patel shouldn't be anywhere near the cabinet table given why she was fired under May. However of all the government departments that I suspect are kind of institutionally rotten and hostile I think the Home Office ranks pretty much at the top. I can't think of any other department that's consistently the death of promising political careers and I swear 90% of the scandals about cover-ups and dodginess emanate from the Home Office. So it could be that in the last twenty-five years the only competent politicians who've run it and got out reasonably unscathed have been Theresa May and David Blunkett. Or, looking at buck-passing that keeps happening (and the police aren't exempt from this either), I wonder if maybe John Reid was right and it's just "not fit for purpose".

[Sheilbh]

Interesting piece by David Gauke (former Justice Secretary and one of the Remain Tory MPs forced out the party by Johnson - he then ran and lost as an independent) on the political case for no deal:

No Deal 2) Why I, a leading former Remainer, am making a case for Johnson actively seeking it
By David Gauke
Last updated: February 29, 2020 at 6:52 pm

Let me make the case for the UK leaving the implementation period at the end of the year without concluding a free trade deal with the EU. And I don't just mean that, as a fall-back position, it is an outcome that the Government could live with. I want to make the case for why, at one level, that this is the outcome the UK Government should actively seek.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe that a No Deal outcome is remotely in the national interest – what with the potential chaos at the ports and the factory closures and general economic malaise and so on. As those who follow these things closely will be aware, I have been somewhat unenthusiastic about the consequences of a No Deal Brexit, an attitude that has not necessarily been to the advantage of my political career.

However, from the political perspective of the Government, there is a rather persuasive argument for ensuring the talks blow up. And the sooner the better.

The challenge for the Government is that there is, and has always been, a trade-off between access to EU markets and regulatory autonomy. If you want preferential access to markets, there will need to be a degree of consistency in regulations. The greater the preferential access, the greater the required level of consistency.

The clear position of the Government is that 'the point of Brexit' is 'to recover our political and economic independence in full' (to quote David Frost's recent speech). Signing up to EU rules or extending the current Implementation Period (whereby we continue to comply with EU rules) runs contrary to 'the point of Brexit'.

There are two relevant consequences of this position. The first is that, in terms of getting preferential access to EU markets, the best one can hope for is an unambitious, thin free trade agreement. Such an agreement will be better economically than a departure on WTO terms but not that much better. Another way of putting it is that the economic downside of failing to get a deal is not that much because we have already accepted a great deal of pain as it is.

The second consequence is that if 'recovering our political and economic independence in full' is, to use David Frost's word, 'fundamental' to Brexit then it is very hard to find a compromise. Any deviation from such a position opens up a political vulnerability. The political pain of compromise gets greater every time someone in Number 10 makes the fundamentalist case.

There is a further difficulty with reaching a deal. Any deal that Boris Johnson gets is one that he will sell with gusto. It will be a fabulous deal, the best possible deal, a triumph. This has its advantages but it also means that the Prime Minister will have ownership of the consequences of the deal. If it turns out to be less than a triumph, there is no one else he can blame. The buck will stop with him.

So getting a deal is likely to have a significant political cost (cries of betrayal from Nigel Farage etc) and limited economic upside. A deal would reduce disruption in early 2021 but there is a case for getting the economic pain out the way early in the Parliament.

Of course, when I say that there will be economic pain, I am going along with the consensus view of economists that putting up trade barriers with one's most important trade partner is a bad thing. The Government thinks the concerns are overstated. David Frost has argued that openness to trade is not as important for driving productivity as most economists believe. Andrew Neil told MakeUK that the days of 'complex, cross-border supply chains are coming to an end' and the Government believes that the future of manufacturing is '3D printers'. Trade openness doesn't matter very much after all.

Without getting too much into these arguments, they are hard to reconcile with the 'Global Britain' narrative that Brexit will be a great success because we can reduce trade barriers with the rest of the world. In any event, if you are the Government, the political price to be paid for getting a deal might not be worth it. If it has reached that conclusion, what would it do?

First, make sure that it is the EU that gets the blame with the British public. Accuse the EU of introducing new demands or placing demands on the UK that are wholly unprecedented, even if these claims are not strictly true. Or, in the former case, even loosely true. There will be lots of people willing to believe that the EU is at fault – just keep repeating the argument, however brazenly untrue. There are people inside No 10 who know how to do this sort of thing very well.

Second, reassure the British public that no deal will be alright. Rebrand 'no deal', perhaps with reference to a prosperous and familiar country that we like. Australia will do.

Third, provoke the EU to be intransigent. The best way to do that is to undermine the EU's trust in our good intentions.

We are currently telling the EU that we have an interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, signed in October, which appears to be wholly at variance with the interpretation made by everyone else as to the need to check goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Someone in Government also appears to have briefed that the Attorney General and Northern Ireland Secretary had been sacked and replaced by people willing to do what they are told on this point.

If we cannot be trusted to stand by agreements reached four months ago, we won't be trusted to comply with vague assertions not to lower our social or environmental protections in the decades ahead. Attempting to renege on the Northern Ireland Protocol will increase the EU's determination to insist on the Level Playing Field provisions in a legally watertight way.

Everything the Government has done – including the negotiating mandate set out this week – is consistent with causing the talks to collapse. That leaves the question of timing.

The most coherent position would be to bring this to a head as soon as possible. If you are an optimist, this will reveal to the EU that this is a Government that will tough it out and they will crumble. Those German car manufacturers will finally ride to our rescue. If you are a pessimist, at least this gives businesses time to prepare for the exciting, new opportunities of leaving on WTO terms.

As a strategy, critics would be justified in describing it as reckless, evasive of responsibility, cynical and dishonest. But politically, on the evidence of the last few years, it would probably work. I fear the Government must be tempted.

[Razgovory]

I think Sheilbh is shifting to the right as he gets older.

Again - I think they're wrong.

I just think you have to try and understand people's motivations, not just dismiss them as knaves or fools for not agreeing with you. Most people are acting for reasons just as sincere as any of us are, even if they passionately disagree with us.

The flip-side is if I see someone who keeps on saying racist, anti-semitic or homophobic stuff I'm less inclined to think they're playing to the gallery or trying to win the votes. I strongly suspect they might just be a racist, anti-semite or homophobe

I agree with you for the most part, but I've been seeing a troubling tendency in the US for people to support policies not because they are good but because they cause suffering and pain on people they hate.