Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

Edit: Also I've said it many times but it's hard to work out which was the biggest catastrophic miscalculation in 2016-19: Remainers deciding that instead of trying to shape the deal into soft Brexit they would bet the house on stopping Brexit and a second referendum or the opposition including lots of Remainer MPs supporting an election instead of keeping the minority Tory government at the mercy of Parliament (the Lib Dems proposed the motion that led to an election the government wanted! ).

Yes let's blame the tiny fourth party for supporting the policy their voters wanted. Let's let Labour, supposedly the main opposition party, off the hook instead of pointing out that they had no policy, not soft-brexit nor hard brexit nor remainter. They just sat around waffling and left everything up to the minor parties. But that's the Remainers fault somehow. And the failures of the Tory government are also the Lib Dems fault. If the Lib Dems had only been soft Brexit Labour would have behaved with coherence and leadership I guess?

Is anything ever Labour or the Tory's fault?

[Sheilbh]

Yes let's blame the tiny fourth party for supporting the policy their voters wanted. Let's let Labour, supposedly the main opposition party, off the hook instead of pointing out that they had no policy, not soft-brexit nor hard brexit nor remainter. They just sat around waffling and left everything up to the minor parties. But that's the Remainers fault somehow. And the failures of the Tory government are also the Lib Dems fault. If the Lib Dems had only been soft Brexit Labour would have behaved with coherence and leadership I guess?

Remainers doesn't = Lib Dem. There are Remainers in all the main parties.

The first thing - I think there's space for an ideologically pro-Remain/pro-European party and I think it makes a lot of sense for the Lib Dems to occupy that space. I think they've fucked up the execution but I understand that. But there were lots of Labour MPs and Tory MPs who were pro-Remain and, with the Tory loyalist wing, had the votes to pass through a Withdrawal Agreement and basically have the whip hand over May's government in a minority Parliament. They chose not to do that and to focus instead on stopping Brexit entirely and getting a second referendum - I think that was a huge mistake and is why we are where we are.

I remember the time the first WA was voted down and there were two demonstrations in Parliament Square - hard-core Leavers and hard-core Remainers. And you had Mark Francois and David Davis leaving the Commons to go to the stage of the first one and update their crowd, and you had Remainer Tory and Labour MPs doing the same to the Remainers. And I remember seeing both demonstrations wildly cheering when the WA was beaten - and at that I thought one side has massively fucked up because this is likely to lead to either the hardest type of Brexit or no Brexit. I didn't know which side got it wrong, but in retrospect we can now say it was the Remainers because they bet the House on no Brexit so weren't able to shape a soft Brexit. In the same way that if Corbyn had won in 2019 and had to form a rainbow coalition with second referendum we'd be saying Rees-Mogg and Francois fucked up because they lost the chance for any Brexit for the sake of a purist Brexit.

Both sides decided to go all in on their version of Brexit rather than to compromise with the loyalist Tories, but that inevitbaly meant one side would win everything and the other lose everything - I can't blame Labour (and their loyalist MPs) for opposing the government, it's their job.

With the second one it's not exclusively the Lib Dems. It was all the opposition parties (except for the SNP - because this has turned out quite well for them) but, it should have been a clue that the government desperately wanted a vote of no confidence and new election. I think the Lib Dems got particularly high on their supply with the whole "next Prime Minister, Jo Swinson" stuff. And there would be an election if the opposition parties didn't vote for one, they had the government at their mercy - by all accounts the Lib Dems were the most gung-ho, people around Corbyn were very divided. From what I understand the SNP were, as they typically are, very canny and basically wouldn't go first but if they other two parties did then they'd join.

[Tamas]

I am sorry but the only one at fault for Boris and his government's actions are Boris and his government.

Your post reminded me how even after 10 years of Orban some people go "if only the left didn't do this and that none of this would have happened". Screw that, it is the guy fucking up at this moment who is at fault.

E.g. If somehow we ended up with a soft Brexit WA during th previous government how do we know  Boris would not have had his landslide to "get Brexit done"?

[Sheilbh]

I am sorry but the only one at fault for Boris and his government's actions are Boris and his government.

Your post reminded me how even after 10 years of Orban some people go "if only the left didn't do this and that none of this would have happened". Screw that, it is the guy fucking up at this moment who is at fault.

But Boris won - the hard Brexiters won. So I don't see how we can say they miscalculated or had the wrong strategy, because they won and they got everything.

Are they responsible for what they do in government - absolutely. Was it a mistake for the hard Brexiters to vote down every Withdrawal Agreement, end the May government, go for an election in 2019 - no, because it worked. They bet the house and won. This was exactly the point Rory Stewart kept making and he was right then, as Obama said, elections have consequences and here we are.

E.g. If somehow we ended up with a soft Brexit WA during th previous government how do we know  Boris would not have had his landslide to "get Brexit done"?

Sure but under our system at the minute there's only an election of the House of Commons votes for an election - and the Tories didn't have the votes to do that on their own. They were entirely at the mercy of the House of Commons - as we saw in late 2019. There was no need for an election until 2022 though I don't know what other chaos would have happened in the meantime.

But the opposition parties and Remainers in all parties in the Commons had it within their power to force the government to negotiate a Brexit that they were happy with, including the current negotiation - they could have forced EFTA or Norway or whatever else. They chose not to because they would rather win everything than compromise, that meant they lost everything.

And in terms of Boris winning a landslide - I don't see it happening. I could be wrong but I don't think "re-join" will be a major force in UK politics after the transition period and I think similarly if we moved to EFTA or Norway or whatever I don't think "harder Brexit" would be a bit force either. Iny my view the thing with Brexit is - it's a bit like the Marina Hyde line about football, that she's not sure if we actually realy like football or just like football adjacent things. I think the number of people who actually care about Brexit itself is quite small, but lots of people care about the Brexit adjacent things - the wider sort of UK culture war issues.

[Josquius]

Questionable as to whether they won or not.
Certainly with the referendum itself Johnson was hoping to be a glorious loser.
There are definitely some in hard Brexit circles looking to make a mint out of a hard Brexit but with some others it really seems they were hoping to lose and get to keep playing the underdog standing up for the little guy billionaires.

[Zanza]

In the end, it is the Tories driving this whole mess. Discussing whether in hindsight the tactics of the opposition parties or some Tory faction were wise seems pointless.

I doubt that the Brexit ultras would ever acquise to any reasonable compromise.  After all the last compromise, which they all voted for, was apparently not worth the paper it was written on as Johnson is now willing to discard it like the extremists demand.

But the relation to the EU will stay a constant topic in British foreign policy even after transition period, deal or no deal. Just look at Switzerland.  Whether that will be with a hostile, an ambivalent or a friendly EU is still open though.

[Sheilbh]

In the end, it is the Tories driving this whole mess. Discussing whether in hindsight the tactics of the opposition parties or some Tory faction were wise seems pointless.

To an extent, yes. But ultimately 2017 to December 2019 was a period of minority government. The Tories didn't have a majority and, as you say, hard-line Brexiters were permanent rebels in that period.

Opposition parties and remainers in all parties had huge amounts of leverage in that period which they only used intermittently. Labour MPs should have voted for the deal Theresa May had - it's the deal a Labour Prime Minister would have negotiated if they were in office, Labour MPs normally could only point to issues they had with the (non-binding) political declaration not the WA. They didn't because partisan identity mattered more than Brexit, and they bear a large part of the responsibility for voting it down three times. I find it odd people have an issue with that given that I can think of several Labour MPs who have said this and said voting down the WA is the biggest mistake of their career.

I doubt that the Brexit ultras would ever acquise to any reasonable compromise.  After all the last compromise, which they all voted for, was apparently not worth the paper it was written on as Johnson is now willing to discard it like the extremists demand.

From what I've read this isn't a demand by Brexit hardliners - this seems very driven by Cummings and Johnson's distinctive views on state aid.
Edit: Just to explain this it would mean Brexit ultras would have to care a single bit about Northern Ireland - whether it's in the union or not, subject to EU laws or not. So far I've seen nothing that indicates they do. But there was a report today that main driver for this is what level of state aid, which Cummings is obsessed with getting to tech companies, could go to Northern Ireland before it becomes notifiable. Their solution is to make it a decision for the UK Secretary of State. It is extraordinary that we're here with the party of Thatcher wanting to gamble heavily not to deregulate which we all feared but to launch huge scale government support for certain preferred industries, but here we are.


But you're right. There were two options for the May government - give in to the hardline Brexiters who would never accept any compromise (the Johnson route) or do a deal with Remainers for a soft Brexit (but there was no-one willing to do a deal).

But the relation to the EU will stay a constant topic in British foreign policy even after transition period, deal or no deal. Just look at Switzerland.  Whether that will be with a hostile, an ambivalent or a friendly EU is still open though.

Yes-ish. I think the better comparison is probably Turkey or Russia. We're not entirely surrounded by the EU and the UK is a far bigger country in terms of population and economy than Switzerland. The EU will be really important

[garbon]

Really it is "the people" who have relaxed too much?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/08/no-10-could-toughen-covid-rules-for-social-gatherings-in-england

No 10 could toughen Covid rules for social gatherings in England

Downing Street is considering whether to reduce the maximum permitted size for social gatherings in England following a sudden rise in coronavirus cases, and warnings that people have "relaxed too much" in their precautions.

No 10 is looking at the current guidelines, which allow up to six people to meet outdoors, whether in a public outdoor space, or in a garden, or 30 if it is an event, to see whether the limits should be reduced, a source said.

No new numbers have been decided, and a decision is not expected immediately, they added.

While up to six people from various households can meet outdoors, or 30 for community events, weddings and the like, inside homes the limit remains just two households or support bubbles.

Adding to the worries about a potential resurgence in the virus, the head of testing for NHS test and trace said on Tuesday that there was a shortage of laboratory capacity to process tests.

There have been complaints about people being sent long distances for tests, or being unable to book one, whether at an outside site, or being sent a home test.

"Can I please offer my heartfelt apologies to anyone who cannot get a Covid test at present," Sarah-Jane Marsh tweeted. "All of our testing sites have capacity, which is why they don't look overcrowded, its our laboratory processing that is the critical pinch-point. We are doing all we can to expand quickly."

...

[Sheilbh]

Surprisingly upfront from Brandon Lewis who carries on the noble Tory tradition of having a Northern Ireland Secretary who knows nothing and cares less about Northern Ireland (except for Julian Lewis - who was excellent so, inevitably, fired by Johnson).

This also flags that this will require legislation so depend on party management, which Johnson has been fucking up royally so far - a PM with a majority of 80 should not be having the issues and grumbling he has. Some Tory grandees sounding very unhappy at this and head of the Government Legal Department has stepped down over this:

Government admits new Brexit bill 'will break international law'
Brandon Lewis tells MPs internal market bill will 'clarify' Northern Ireland protocol
Lisa O'Carroll Brexit correspondent
@lisaocarroll
Tue 8 Sep 2020 18.54 BST
First published on Tue 8 Sep 2020 14.33 BST

The government has admitted that its plan to reinterpret the special Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland will break international law.

The Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, astonished backbenchers when he told the House of Commons: "Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We're taking the powers to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect ... in a certain very tightly defined circumstance."

In a new internal market bill, the government is expected to unveil plans for domestic powers to govern part of the Northern Ireland protocol, something that has threatened to torpedo Brexit talks that resumed in London on Tuesday.

It reportedly led to the resignation of the UK's top legal civil servant, Jonathan Jones, on Tuesday morning.

Lewis told the House of Commons that what the UK was doing was not that unusual.

"There are precedents for the UK and, indeed, other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change," he said citing changes in the Finance Act in 2013.

But the admission led to a torrent of criticism, including from the former prime minister Theresa May, who questioned whether Boris Johnson was risking the UK's international reputation as a trustworthy nation.

"How can the government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of the agreement itself?" she asked in an exchange with Lewis during an urgent question in the Commons on the latest developments.

The Irish foreign affairs minister, Simon Coveney, said the latest revelations were "gravely concerning".

Coveney, who was instrumental in the negotiations about the Irish border, said he could not understand why the UK was seeking to create a "safety net" given the Northern Ireland protocol was specifically "designed and empowered to work in all circumstances".

"It is surely not too much to ask for the UK to implement the withdrawal agreement which it agreed to," he told the Dáil Éireann, Ireland's lower house of parliament.

Johnson's move to try to override part of the Northern Ireland protocol has put Brexit talks at risk but Lewis told MPs the new legislation, which would "clarify" part of the special arrangements on Northern Ireland, was designed as "limited and reasonable steps to create a safety net" in the event that talks collapse.

The shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Louise Haigh, accused the government of using the region as a "political football".

She also questioned whether the government would be asking ministers to break the ministerial code and vote for the internal market bill, the vehicle for the Brexit changes, due to be tabled in Westminster on Wednesday.

Sir Robert Neill, the Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst and chair of the justice select committee, said "the rule of law is not negotiable" and an international treaty signed by the government should not be breached.

Claire Hanna, the SDLP MP for Belfast South, implored Lewis not to "use the threat of a border in Northern Ireland" as a "cat's paw in this or any other negotiation".

The DUP North Antrim MP, Ian Paisley, accused the government of having a "tin-foil spine" in failing to stand up to its critics, while his colleague Sammy Wilson, one of the most vocal critics of the Brexit deal, said: "We still don't know the depth and breadth" of the checks in Northern Ireland.

The president of the Law Society of England and Wales, Simon Davis, said: "The rule of law is not negotiable.

"Our commitment to the rule of law is key to attracting international business to the UK and to maintaining faith in our justice system."

Government sources claimed the move would not breach the ministerial code because the obligation on ministers to comply with international law was removed from the guidance in 2015 by David Cameron.

However legal experts, including David Anderson, a member of the House of Lords EU security and justice sub-committee, said the code still mandated that ministers uphold international law after a court of appeal ruling in 2018 concluded ministers had an "overarching" duty to do so.

Lewis urged the critics to wait until Wednesday to see what was in the bill.

"I think it would be wholly wrong for the UK government not to take the approach to ensure that there is a safety net should [Brexit talks'] fail, to ensure that in January businesses and people know they've got the contents of a structure in place to deliver on our promises."

He said the bill was designed to deliver the government's promise that Northern Ireland traders would have "unfettered access" to Great British markets.

However he batted away a question from Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit select committee, who demanded to know if, as expected under the protocol, businesses from Great Britain would have to fill in paperwork, including entry summary declarations, if sending goods to Northern Ireland.

That, said Lewis, was being discussed by the specialised EU-UK committee set up under the withdrawal agreement.

[The Brain]

Going rogue I see. Rogues are a bit behind.

[garbon]

David Schneider
@davidschneider
Remember if you're caught committing a crime:

It's fine to break the law if it's in a very specific or limited way (Brandon Lewis)

It's fine to break the rules if it fits with "natural justice" (Jenrick)

It's fine to break the rules if you need your eyes tested. (Cummings)

[Sheilbh]

Also reports that Sunak, Raab and Gove (on the UK-Ireland/EU implementation committee for the protocol) have concerns about this. Obviously their concerns are shaped by their roles so Sunak worries about the costs, Raab thinks it will make dealing with Russia and China more difficult and Gove is concerned about the union. I'm not sure about Sunak (as I say I think he's the first prominent post-Brexit politician), but Raab and Gove are both conviction Brexiters and Gove is known for his willingness to pick fights with the bureaucracy he's running. In addition they are probably three of the most powerful cabinet ministers - Patel is the only one missing.

If Number 10 has any sense this should give them a little bit of pause.

[Tamas]

Also reports that Sunak, Raab and Gove (on the UK-Ireland/EU implementation committee for the protocol) have concerns about this. Obviously their concerns are shaped by their roles so Sunak worries about the costs, Raab thinks it will make dealing with Russia and China more difficult and Gove is concerned about the union. I'm not sure about Sunak (as I say I think he's the first prominent post-Brexit politician), but Raab and Gove are both conviction Brexiters and Gove is known for his willingness to pick fights with the bureaucracy he's running. In addition they are probably three of the most powerful cabinet ministers - Patel is the only one missing.

If Number 10 has any sense this should give them a little bit of pause.

Anyone with the slightest sense of practicality and an ability to think beyond a two-days timeframe (I am not bringing ethics into it with this lot) would have problems with this.

Who the hell would want to sign a deal with a country which can't even PRETEND to keep to one (which I am fairly certain what the EU leaders realistically expected when it came to the Irish Sea border) for at least a year.

It's a dick move that is a disaster and will backfire either if it is actually meant, or if it is a "strategem" to coerce the EU into concessions.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm off to Barnard castle for an eye test this weekend; it does break the law but only in a limited and specific way.

[Zanza]

From the initial comments on the new Internal Market Bill, it sounds like a full-blown Enabling Act for government, making the breach of the WA just the second worst part of the bill....