Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

It's really striking May could get the best deal imaginable and would lose the vote on it; Johnson could be pushing the worst imaginable and would win. Politics and elections matter.

Cameron had the best possible deal and lost despite winning an election before.

[Sheilbh]

It's really striking May could get the best deal imaginable and would lose the vote on it; Johnson could be pushing the worst imaginable and would win. Politics and elections matter.

Cameron had the best possible deal and lost despite winning an election before.

But he lost a referendum - I just mean parliamentary votes. I don't think people necessarily care if a party leader is a "winner" or not, MPs definitely do

[grumbler]

Psst, Grumbsy, the conclusion makes a difference between England and the UK.

The title "Brexit trade deal: Who really owns UK fishing quotas?" doesn't, but the graph does.

Does England have an EU fishing quota?  Or does the UK create a separate quota of its own for each member-state?

It just seems to me that this is cherry-picking. 

[Sheilbh]

Sensible politics by Starmer:

Labour will not seek major changes to UK's relationship with EU – Keir Starmer
Exclusive: Labour leader says he will focus on economy and the NHS next year
Jessica Elgot Deputy political editor
@jessicaelgot
Tue 29 Dec 2020 22.00 GMT
Last modified on Wed 30 Dec 2020 04.36 GMT

Labour will make a clean break from its divisions over Europe and will not seek major changes to the UK's relationship with the EU, Keir Starmer has told the Guardian, vowing to shift Labour's focus to "Britain in the 2030s" rather than the battles of 2016.

Evoking Tony Blair's election slogan of "forward not back" on the eve of the vote on the post-Brexit trade deal, Starmer said he wanted to lead a party that was focused on the future – saying it was unlikely Europe would even feature on his party's election leaflets.

The Labour leader, who said the aim of his first year had been listening to voters about the party's general election loss, said his party would now begin to spell out its vision of a future Labour government. Starmer said 2021 would be the time to define his vision and values as a future prime minister – with a focus on the economy and the NHS.

In a nod to his angry backbenchers, dozens of whom are expected to refuse to endorse the Conservative deal, Starmer said he knew there were difficult choices, but said the vote for the deal would bring some closure.

Johnson has often sought to characterise Starmer as a "remainer lawyer" and one of the most outspoken advocates for a second referendum under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. But Starmer said he would now define his own image.

"I'm determined the next general election will be fought on our terms, not somebody else's terms," he said. "We've left the EU and the remain/leave argument is over. Amongst the reasons for voting for the deal is to allow that closure. In our general election campaign in 2024, we will be a future-looking Labour party and a future Labour government, not one that looks behind us."

In his interview, Starmer also warned about the crisis facing the NHS and schools over the next month, saying the UK was "staring down the barrel" of a third lockdown in January.

Labour will attempt to amend the bill which will enforce the trade deal from 11pm on 31 December – including additional protections on labour and environmental standards and support for business preparedness but none are likely to succeed. Johnson's deal is likely to pass with ease with Labour's support – though the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the DUP have said they will vote against the deal.

Starmer suggested he had been convinced of the need to vote for the deal for some time – and defended his decision to announce Labour's position shortly after the deal had been published.

"I have been up to my ears in the details of the Brexit negotiations," he said. "I've read everything available on all the negotiating positions and the details of them. We had a very, very good idea of what this deal was going to look like – borne of four years of studying every twist and turn of this along the way."

The Labour leader has faced some criticism from his backbenchers for his framing of the vote as a choice between deal and no deal – when many would favour abstaining and thus withholding any implied endorsement.

"If you vote against it, you are voting for no deal. That's the SNP's inexplicable position. The consequence of that, if they succeed, will be no deal."

Starmer said accepting the deal that was on offer meant accepting that it would be the relationship in place if Labour entered government in 2024. "This is a tough choice, I absolutely understand that."

"We vote tomorrow in the mindset of the next general election in 2024. If we come into government in 2024 – and I hope we do – we will inherit this deal. The public in Britain would expect us to make this deal work."

Starmer said he could not envisage Europe or Brexit playing any part in the election campaign of 2024 – or featuring on any Labour MPs' election leaflets – despite the opportunity for a review of the treaty in 2024, which is spelled out in the current deal.

"It's pretty unlikely. The focus will be on Britain and on Britain's role in the world," he said. "Will the renegotiation of the treaty be central to the manifesto? No.

"If we are still arguing in 2024 abut what has gone in these past four years, we're facing the wrong way as far as I'm concerned."

Starmer said there was a case Labour would make over the coming months and years about ways to improve the UK's relationship with the EU, including access to security data and the ability of artists and musicians to operate across Europe. "But there will not be an appetite for renegotiating the entire treaty."

Starmer plans to make 2021 a more proactive year for Labour's policy offering but was cautious about making any concrete promises about what will be in the party's next manifesto.

"We are still four years from a general election," he said. "But my priority going into next year and central to our arguments going into 2024 will be the economy."

He is reluctant to specify what exactly that offering would be, but said the primary focus would be jobs and "how we support good businesses and good jobs ... I don't just mean pay, I mean dignity in jobs – and how we support the economy across the different regions and nations."

Starmer is likely to find Boris Johnson attempting to fight on Labour's terms with his "levelling up" agenda where new Tories in the red wall are able to point to infrastructure and high street investment in their seats. But Starmer said he believed the drive would be cosmetic. "Levelling up is going to turn out to be a version of David Cameron's big society, which is words that don't mean anything or achieve anything," he said.

"There was no levelling up when the government was fighting Andy Burnham in the north-west. If the prime minister thinks that building the odd thing in places across Britain and sticking a Tory MP's photo on it is levelling up then he is misdescribing anything he is likely to achieve."

Starmer's second – and most obvious – focus will be the fallout from the pandemic and its effect on the NHS. "We are the country with the highest death toll from Covid in Europe, and also the likely deepest recession of any major economy," he said.

"We've been only a matter of weeks out of that second lockdown and we're effectively staring down the barrel of the third lockdown. Everybody understands that the government will make mistakes in trying to handle a pandemic, but a government that just repeats the mistakes really is incompetent."

Starmer said he knew he would need to continue to navigate his biggest challenge as an opposition leader – "supporting the government where it's necessary to do so and criticising and challenging where it is necessary to do so."

Once the constraints of the pandemic begin to ease, Starmer said he hoped to spend much of 2021 on the road. "We're very determined that I'm going to be out at least twice a week in different places across the UK, mainly going to places that we've got to win votes in a places where we lost," he said. "The sooner we can do that, the better. It's really frustrating that we've not been able to do it in the way we wanted."

[Iormlund]

The Labour leader has faced some criticism from his backbenchers for his framing of the vote as a choice between deal and no deal – when many would favour abstaining and thus withholding any implied endorsement.

They are right, IMHO. Abstention is the correct answer.

[garbon]

The Labour leader has faced some criticism from his backbenchers for his framing of the vote as a choice between deal and no deal – when many would favour abstaining and thus withholding any implied endorsement.

They are right, IMHO. Abstention is the correct answer.

I don't see how. I feel like it would feed into narrative that Labour isn't fit to lead in government if they can't do the basics of their job - voting on things.

[Sheilbh]

They are right, IMHO. Abstention is the correct answer.

I'm not so sure.

I think abstention has become weird in UK politics. It makes perfect sense especially for an opposition party because normally they'll be voting on motions worded by their opponents or laws drafted by them. But I think it's now seen by both sides of an issue as a cop-out - so if you abstain people who oppose x measure think you actually support it but refuse to take a stand and people who support x measure think you actually oppose it but refuse to take a stand. So you normally get all the negatives of voting for or against something without any of the benefits.

I feel like this started with Miliband and Corbyn's leadership campaign. During the 2015 leadership election when Osborne proposed a welfare cap that basically said you couldn't get more welfare than the average wage (because welfare policy was, to George Osborne, nothing but a tool to trap the Labour party ). Harriet Harman who was the acting leader at the time could see it was a trap so she whipped Labour to abstain and all of the candidates who were in the shadow cabinet followed the whip - Jeremy Corbyn wasn't in the shadow cabinet and voted against and really laid into people for abstaining. He was probably going to win anyway but that was the point when it became clear that he'd probably get over 50% of the vote on the first round because Labour activists and members didn't care if it was a trap, they didn't want the "cop-out" gameplaying of an abstention.

I can see a case for abstaining but I think it would just open Labour up to attacks on both sides - Johnson would spend the next 4 years saying they just want to re-join and spend another 4+ years on negotiations while the SNP and the Lib Dems would say they couldn't even oppose the government on this, so how can we trust them. At least by voting for the agreement they can start to make a pitch for some of the vote that went to the Tories. As I say I think the smart thing to do would be a bit like what Blair did about joining the Euro (and what it sounds like Starmer is doing): say Labour would not hold any referendums, would not seek to re-negotiate the agreement or re-join in their first term - their priority would be on improving public services and re-balancing Britain's economy. Just try and neutralise it as a wedge issue (which will only benefit the Tories) so you can focus on your wedge issues like the NHS instead.

[The Brain]

Starmer said there was a case Labour would make over the coming months and years about ways to improve the UK's relationship with the EU, including access to security data and the ability of artists and musicians to operate across Europe.

What's special about artists and musicians?

[Sheilbh]

Starmer said there was a case Labour would make over the coming months and years about ways to improve the UK's relationship with the EU, including access to security data and the ability of artists and musicians to operate across Europe.

What's special about artists and musicians?

They travel a lot for work in different countries.

[Sheilbh]

Also have to laugh at Theresa May's line to Starmer that if he wanted a better deal he should have voted for hers

[Iormlund]

I can see a case for abstaining but I think it would just open Labour up to attacks on both sides - Johnson would spend the next 4 years saying they just want to re-join and spend another 4+ years on negotiations while the SNP and the Lib Dems would say they couldn't even oppose the government on this, so how can we trust them. At least by voting for the agreement they can start to make a pitch for some of the vote that went to the Tories.

It's a mistake to go after Brexiteer vote. That way you end up in the same position the Tories were when they started this mess.

Labour needs to think about what happens when Europe is brought forward again. Which will happen.
The EU is not going anywhere. There will still be issues at Calais, Gibraltar and NI, fishing rights and a myriad of other things that will shape our relationship and incense Daily Mail readers. This is not the end. It's just the beginning of our new relationship.

[Sheilbh]

It's a mistake to go after Brexiteer vote. That way you end up in the same position the Tories were when they started this mess.

It's not about going after the Brexiteer vote but being a party Brexiteers can vote for. There is no way to power for Labour if they rely on former remain voters because they're fighting for that vote with the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid etc while ceding the other 50% of the vote to the Tories (repeating Roy Jenkins' point about why the UK had a conservative not a progressive 20th century: the left were split).

It is also worth noting that about a third of the Labour vote, voted leave and about a third of the Tory vote, voted remain - the Tories have kept more of their remain voters since 2016 than Labour have kept their leave voters.

But also my instinct is that Europe isn't going to be a huge dividing/culture war issue. I don't think we'll still be thinking in terms of Leave/Remain in a decade's time.

Labour needs to think about what happens when this issue is brought forward again. Which will happen.
The EU is not going anywhere. There will still be issues at Calais, Gibraltar and NI, fishing rights and a myriad of other things that will shape our relationships and incense Daily Mail readers. This is not the end. It's just the beginning of our new relationship.

I think the approach they should and will take is to address those issues as standalone issues rather than looking for a new sort of relationship with Europe. I think this deal will fairly quickly move to broad cross-party consensus for at least the next decade and there'll be nothing to gain by trying to re-open it as an issue for Labour. It's different if you're a minority party like the Lib Dems/Greens/SNP/Plaid etc.

It's a bit like the fact that most Europeans don't care about this any more, most Brits don't either and don't want to think about it again (and there's polling that actually people want it over because it's been so divisive). So a party that says we'll keep the status quo and not try to change it will, I suspect, do better than a party that says they want to re-open the issue and develop a new sort of relationship with the EU.

Edit: Basically in 2024 I don't think it'll be leavers v remainers, I think it'll be exhausted majority v outraged minority (hard-core leavers disappointed by compromises, continuity remain). I think Labour will be far safer if they're trying to win votes in the exhausted majority pool.

And just seen some polling on this - people broadly want MPs to vote for this:

[The Brain]

Starmer said there was a case Labour would make over the coming months and years about ways to improve the UK's relationship with the EU, including access to security data and the ability of artists and musicians to operate across Europe.

What's special about artists and musicians?

They travel a lot for work in different countries.

But not OK for plumbers?

[Iormlund]

But also my instinct is that Europe isn't going to be a huge dividing/culture war issue. I don't think we'll still be thinking in terms of Leave/Remain in a decade's time.

Guess we will see. I can't see why the eurosceptics would cease agitating against the EU now after all this time. It's proven the perfect diversion.

It's not about going after the Brexiteer vote but being a party Brexiteers can vote for. There is no way to power for Labour if they rely on former remain voters because they're fighting for that vote with the Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid etc while ceding the other 50% of the vote to the Tories (repeating Roy Jenkins' point about why the UK had a conservative not a progressive 20th century: the left were split).

In truth I can't see Labour back in government any time soon. Even assuming Scotland remains in the Union.

And just seen some polling on this - people broadly want MPs to vote for this:

The way I read that is that Labour voters are divided and significantly uncertain. Hardly an endorsement for any any particular course of action.

[Sheilbh]

Guess we will see. I can't see why the eurosceptics would cease agitating against the EU now after all this time. It's proven the perfect diversion.

I don't think eurosceptics will agitate because it's now in their interests for this to work. They've got Brexit - there's a deal endorsed by Farage and the ERG and Boris etc - they want that to work. If it fails it will be their baby that's failed. They own what happens now.

Farage might pop up agitating about this but I don't think so, I think the space to the right of the Tories he might occupy is more around things like energy transition - liberal metropolitan elites aren't bearing the costs, it's provincial Brexitland motorists - NIMBYism if Johnson does go in for infrastructure projects/more building, and some bits of the culture war.

I could be wrong but my guess is that over the next year a consensus will basically form around this agreement and that'll probably last for at least the next decade.

In truth I can't see Labour back in government any time soon. Even assuming Scotland remains in the Union.

Yeah. They're polling well-ish now, but not well enough and the indications in those polls are that Labour are piling up yet more votes in cities and university towns, rather than winning back votes in areas that went Tory in 2017 and 2019. And given that Scotland's lost to Labour now, they basically need to do as well as Blair in 1997 to be back in power which is a big ask.

In a weird way Scotland staying in the union or not makes no difference anymore because Labour have just imploded in Scotland (and the Scottish Labour party is going in a really weird direction at the minute - attacking covid lockdowns etc - it's a bit odd). In 2019 in Scotland the SNP won about 50 seats, the Tories and Lib Dems won about 5 each and Labour won 1.

The way I read that is that Labour voters are divided and significantly uncertain. Hardly an endorsement for any any particular course of action.

Also a chunk of Labour voters always want them to vote against the government/the Tories