Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

So now Johnson and even some of the "rebel" Tories are talking about only invoking the pariah-state clause if a deal is not reached.

But... if a deal is not reached the WA expires and there's no more obligation from the UK to have a border on the Irish Sea so what kind of a BS goalpostmoving sorry excuse of an excuse is this?

That's not right. The Northern Ireland Protocol continues to apply after the rest of the WA drops away whether there is a deal or not. All that the UK and EU are negotiating is a free trade agreement; we are leaving the single market and the customs union whether there's a deal or not. So regardless of what happens there needs to be a solution to Northern Ireland (this is also why I think 90% of the economic hit is baked in whether there's a deal or not - leaving the customs union and single market will be far bigger than the benefits of an FTA at the end).

What you're saying would have been true under Theresa May, but that's because she cared about the union and the position of Northern Ireland while Johnson does not give a fuck. So her plan was basically to negotiate the entire UK stays in the customs union to avoid the Northern Irish issue.

I also saw talk that the government was considering withdrawing the whip from rebels. I assume someone pointed out that doing that a few months ahead of an election works because you get to replace the Tory MPs who rebelled against you with fresh faces who support you, so it makes sense. Doing it in year 1 of a 4-5 year Parliament is more likely to just create a group of independent MPs who'll be a pain in the arse for years

[Sheilbh]

Looks like all is going to be focused on the proposed amendments for the bill - but given the names of people coming out against this there is a lot of cover for more junior MPs to break ranks.

Brexit: internal market bill passes by 77 votes amid Tory party tension
Justice secretary believed to be among those unhappy at move to break international law
Jessica Elgot and Heather Stewart
Mon 14 Sep 2020 23.13 BST
Last modified on Tue 15 Sep 2020 00.13 BST

Conservative MPs fired a warning shot at Boris Johnson's conduct of the Brexit process on Monday night, as former cabinet ministers and attorney generals said they would withhold support for a controversial bill which will break international law.

One government source said the justice secretary, Robert Buckland, was "wobbly" and had asked for additional cabinet scrutiny of a controversial clause of the bill.

Among those who refused to support the bill on Monday were a slew of senior Conservatives, select committee chairs and QCs – most notably the former chancellor Sajid Javid and ex-attorney generals Sir Geoffrey Cox and Jeremy Wright.

However, Johnson's sizeable majority meant the UK internal market bill passed with a comfortable cushion of 77 votes on Monday night, by 340 votes to 263. The real showdown is now set to be next week's vote on an amendment by Bob Neill, the Conservative chair of the justice select committee.

MPs had urged the government to accept that amendment – rather than proceed with the internal market bill which breaches part of the Northern Ireland protocol as set out in the withdrawal agreement signed with the EU.

The veteran Conservative backbencher Sir Roger Gale said he voted against the bill: "I believe very strongly we should obey international law. I believe the United Kingdom's word is its bond and I think this is damaging our international reputation for honesty and straight-dealing," he said.

He added that there was "much to play for" when the Commons comes to consider amendments to the bill next week.

The select committee chairs Neill, Simon Hoare and Tobias Ellwood, and the former culture chair Damian Collins, criticised the bill as well as the former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell. A number of former lawyers withdrew support including MPs Rehman Chishti, who resigned as a special envoy, and Gary Streeter.

Buckland was said to be particularly concerned about clause 45 of the bill. This states that regulations made by ministers under the legislation cannot be found incompatible with international law. It appears to be an attempt by Downing Street to avoid future legal challenges.

All five living former prime ministers had expressed concern about the bill, as well as the former Conservative leaders William Hague and Michael Howard.

Charles Walker, the vice-chair of the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, suggested the brewing rebellion, even if it did not kill the bill, was the result of mounting tension within the party – not only over the breach of international law but over coronavirus restrictions – both of which he called "profoundly un-Conservative."

"I'm not going to be voting for this bill. Because if you keep whacking a dog don't be surprised when it bites you back," he said. "We are all members of parliament and we deserve to be taken seriously."

Some MPs were told the threat of withdrawing the Conservative whip had not been ruled out if they rebelled.

In a nod to some angry MPs, Johnson said he would never invoke the controversial powers in the internal market bill if a Brexit trade deal was reached with the EU. He said the UK would "simultaneously pursue every possible redress under international law, as provided for in the [Northern Ireland] protocol" – a measure suggested by Cox.

Opening the debate in the Commons, the prime minister claimed the EU was willing to "use the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that goes well beyond common sense, simply to exert leverage against the UK in our negotiations for a free trade agreement".

Johnson said the measures in the bill – which would hand unilateral powers to ministers in key areas yet to be agreed with the EU, breaching the terms of the treaty agreed in January – were "a protection, it's a safety net, it's in an insurance policy, and it is a very sensible measure".

He said threats from the EU, which the bloc has denied, had made the legislation necessary, claiming the bloc could prevent food exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

That claim drew incredulity from the shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, who responded for Labour. He said the bill did "precisely nothing" to address that issue, offering mockingly to give way to Johnson in the Commons if he had found anything in the bill that dealt with the "supposed threat".

"He didn't read the protocol, he hasn't read the bill," Miliband said. "What incompetence, what failure of governance, and how dare he try and blame everyone else? This is his deal, it's his mess, it's his failure."

Intervening in Johnson's speech, Wright raised the ministerial code which he said bounds ministers to respect international law. Earlier the former attorney general had said he along with many others were "profoundly disturbed by what's going on".

A number of those who objected were former lawyers, including Cox. "There is concern among some lawyers in parliament about what effect this would have on their practice after they leave parliament – the bar has made its view very clear," one MP said.

The debate also saw two of the 2019-intake of Tory MPs say they would decline to back the bill. Imran Ahmad Khan, who represents Wakefield, said: "Moral authority is hard-earned and easily lost." The other was Dr Ben Spencer, who has the former chancellor Philip Hammond's seat of Runnymede and Weybridge.

Javid, who quit the cabinet earlier this year, said it was not clear why international law had to be broken and that he was "regretfully unable to support the UK internal market bill" unamended. He added the UK should wait until it was clear the EU intended to act in bad faith and until then use safeguards already enshrined in the withdrawal agreement.

Others who abstained included Ellwood, the chair of the defence select committee, who said: "Everything is getting very high-octane, and the collateral damage to Britain is reaching the US Congress, where people are bewildered we are going down this avenue.

"Many of us are conflicted because I came into politics to further Britain's place on the international stage, and now we are at a time where there is an absence of political leadership, and we can't hold our heads up high if we are being seen to challenge international law."

An amendment next week has been put forward by Neill – another former barrister – which is gathering support. It would require parliamentary approval before any future decision could be made by the government to disapply the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement.

Those backing the Neill amendment include the former cabinet minister Damian Green, the QC and former justice minister Oliver Heald and Damian Collins, former chair of the culture select committee.

One senior backbencher accused the whips of scare tactics ahead of the vote. "Unfortunately this is being framed as being pro or against Brexit again, even whether you are patriotic," the MP said. "Cox's intervention should prevent it descending into those shallow waters.

"They are now leaning heavily on loyalty to the prime minister – and there are many people who do want to go back into government and they will be tested today, there's no question."

There is consternation even among loyal long-serving Conservatives who are planning to back the government. One former cabinet minister said they would only back the bill "through gritted teeth".

On Monday, David Cameron said: "Passing an act of parliament and then going on to break an international treaty obligation is the very, very last thing you should contemplate. It should be an absolute final resort. So, I do have misgivings about what's being proposed."

The former Labour prime ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair and the former Conservative prime minister John Major all said the bill risked the UK's international obligation. Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, also made clear in parliament she is concerned about the implications of the bill.

The former prime minister did not vote on the bill on Monday – but was in South Korea on a planned invitation for the World Knowledge Forum.

[Zanza]

The WA cannot "expire" or "drop away". It is an international treaty creating long-term obligations for Britain, at least for some decades. Britain only has the option to renegotiate, which the EU will likely refuse, break its treaty obligations unilaterally or follow the treaty. It is not contingent on the EU and UK finding further agreements, e.g. on trade or security. That's why the EU sequenced the negotiations in the way it did.

[Zanza]

Read an FT article about where Brexit ranks in foreign policy consideration for Germany, but I guess it is similar for e.g. France, with slight nuances. Brexit probably ranks among the top ten, but psychologically, the EU has concluded that there will be no deal or a very thin deal. Even the British now breaking the WA is no biggie. The EU can easily establish a border for goods in Ireland now and blame English nationalists. Easiest PR operation in history. 

Ranking Brexit, it would for me at least now come after Russia (Nordstream, Nawalny, interventions in Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, propaganda), Turkey (conflict with Greece and Cyprus on economic zones, intervention in Libya and Syria, millions of refugees), USA (international order, trade war), China (economic interests, less so Uighurs and HK), autocratic tendencies in Hungary and Poland, corruption in Bulgaria, West Balkan integration into EU, economic malaise due to Covid, and last but not least climate change...

However, the Tory antics offer better entertainment and discussions online, so it is still worth following 

[Josquius]

Is it time to start panic buying yet?

[The Brain]

Is it time to start panic buying yet?

Buying? No.

[Tamas]

So now Johnson and even some of the "rebel" Tories are talking about only invoking the pariah-state clause if a deal is not reached.

But... if a deal is not reached the WA expires and there's no more obligation from the UK to have a border on the Irish Sea so what kind of a BS goalpostmoving sorry excuse of an excuse is this?

That's not right. The Northern Ireland Protocol continues to apply after the rest of the WA drops away whether there is a deal or not. All that the UK and EU are negotiating is a free trade agreement; we are leaving the single market and the customs union whether there's a deal or not. So regardless of what happens there needs to be a solution to Northern Ireland (this is also why I think 90% of the economic hit is baked in whether there's a deal or not - leaving the customs union and single market will be far bigger than the benefits of an FTA at the end).

What you're saying would have been true under Theresa May, but that's because she cared about the union and the position of Northern Ireland while Johnson does not give a fuck. So her plan was basically to negotiate the entire UK stays in the customs union to avoid the Northern Irish issue.

I also saw talk that the government was considering withdrawing the whip from rebels. I assume someone pointed out that doing that a few months ahead of an election works because you get to replace the Tory MPs who rebelled against you with fresh faces who support you, so it makes sense. Doing it in year 1 of a 4-5 year Parliament is more likely to just create a group of independent MPs who'll be a pain in the arse for years

Ah I see. So Johnson agreed to a permanent separation of NI from Britain and now blames the EU for wanting to keep to that.

I assume the idea is a game of chicken, where the EU will not want to be seen as reimposing border controls in Ireland. But of course, their alternative will be to be taken for complete fools as the entire EU-UK trade will flow through the Northern Irish border tariff and regulation free.

I guess it would work wonders to the NI economy as all cheap shitty Chinese and other companies would set up shop there to sell to companies in the EU without the need to adhere to standards and regulations since the UK will not be enforcing those.

[The Brain]

I think and hope that the EU won't feel it's terribly important to save Johnson from UK public opinion.

AFAIK EU public opinion has written off the UK a long time ago and just don't care. I think the Irish can be counted on to (correctly) blame the Brits.

[Sheilbh]

Ah I see. So Johnson agreed to a permanent separation of NI from Britain and now blames the EU for wanting to keep to that.

I assume the idea is a game of chicken, where the EU will not want to be seen as reimposing border controls in Ireland. But of course, their alternative will be to be taken for complete fools as the entire EU-UK trade will flow through the Northern Irish border tariff and regulation free.

I guess it would work wonders to the NI economy as all cheap shitty Chinese and other companies would set up shop there to sell to companies in the EU without the need to adhere to standards and regulations since the UK will not be enforcing those.

Sort of. It's exactly right on Johnson basically agreeing to a border in the Irish Sea (which he now says no British Prime Minister could accept, a line Theresa May used with the crucial difference that she didn't accept it, but he did ).

I don't think the specific issue is adherence to standards and regulations because, from my understanding, that's a devolved matter and it's in the Northern Irish government's interest to keep everyone happy because they could be getting the best of both worlds.

The issue is around the application of bits of EU law in particular filling out customs forms when shipping from Northern Ireland to GB ("exit declarations") and regulations around state aid. The issue here is basically who notifies state aid and seems to be less about state aid that is directly in Northern Ireland, but rather the extent to which it washes up in Northern Ireland so is subject to EU rules. So let's same Cummings builds his UK-Google with state investment, and a significant chunk of that is buying goods or services from Northern Irish companies which might trigger EU rules. The government doesn't want that to happen automatically, instead there's a decision by the Secretary of State.

The WA cannot "expire" or "drop away". It is an international treaty creating long-term obligations for Britain, at least for some decades. Britain only has the option to renegotiate, which the EU will likely refuse, break its treaty obligations unilaterally or follow the treaty. It is not contingent on the EU and UK finding further agreements, e.g. on trade or security. That's why the EU sequenced the negotiations in the way it did.

It expires at the end of this year. The WA basically sets out areas of EU law that will continue to apply in the UK (for this year) and in exchange the UK is treated as it were an EU member state. At the end of this year (assuming there's no extension) that ceases to apply and the UK becomes a third country that isn't subject to EU law and isn't treated like an EU member state. There are bits that will carry on running (unless they're superceded by another agreement) such as the NI protocol, or the protocol dealing with the UK bases in Cyprus or Gibraltar and protecting the rights of residents (EU and UK) in different countries before the end of the transition.

But it's not a long term treaty generally. That's the entire point this just sets out the divorce - everything else is being negotiated now.

[Josquius]

I continue to hold Miliband is the best PM we've never had.
Completely rips into Johnson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWp6GnQT1uY

Alas the reasons why he failed are clear. Completely unpolished and nerdy. But thats why I like him dammit.

[Sheilbh]

I continue to hold Miliband is the best PM we've never had.

Jesus Christ

He's not even top 3 of the best PMs we never had in the 2010s (Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham all ahead of him).

[Josquius]

I continue to hold Miliband is the best PM we've never had.

Jesus Christ

He's not even top 3 of the best PMs we never had in the 2010s (Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham all ahead of him).

I'm purely looking at people who were actually in the final stage of running for the job. Of course there's plenty of people who never become leader of a party who would have been good.

It must be pointed out, even ignoring Milliband himself the effects of him winning the GE would have been brilliant, avoiding Brexit and Corbyn.

[Tamas]

It must be pointed out, even ignoring Milliband himself the effects of him winning the GE would have been brilliant, avoiding delaying Brexit and Corbyn.

FYP

[Josquius]

It must be pointed out, even ignoring Milliband himself the effects of him winning the GE would have been brilliant, avoiding delaying Brexit and Corbyn.

FYP

No, I really do think if we could have staved off a brexit referendum until even now that the result would have been very different. 2016 really was the absolute worst possible time for it, every year the financial crisis would have sunk further into the past, the backlog from the east would be dealt with and eastern european countries catch up with the west thus decreasing the annual numbers, the migration crisis again would fade away, boomers would die and digital natives would reach voting age...

As to Corbyn...less clear cut there but I do think if we'd had Miliband in charge, pulling Labour back towards the left albeit without a far left figurehead, then that could have done a lot for the party.

[Sheilbh]

I'm purely looking at people who were actually in the final stage of running for the job. Of course there's plenty of people who never become leader of a party who would have been good.

Okay. I'd go with almost every other Labour leader over Miliband - Smith, Kinnock (), Gaitskell

It must be pointed out, even ignoring Milliband himself the effects of him winning the GE would have been brilliant, avoiding Brexit and Corbyn.

Maybe - I think that assumes he wins an outright majority and is very good at the job. I think if it we were just in the 5th year of a Labour government supported by the SNP and by Plaid Cymru, helping contribute to an EU covid recovery fund, then we would have just delayed a Brexit vote and probably have an even more hypercharged sense of English nationalism/grievance.

I think the demand for a vote on the EU and the result had some pretty big structural causes that wouldn't have just been solved by Labour forming a government in 2015. I don't think it was just an accident or a quirk of 2016.