Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

Edit: Incidentally on "woke" trade agreements - the Australia text has now been released and Sam Lowe and a trade researcher noted this:

Sam Lowe
@SamuelMarcLowe
The UK-Australia commitments on labour and environment appear to be subject to dispute settlement, with possibility of benefits being withdrawn in event of a breach. Which is a change in approach from EU FTAs, where the commitments are subject to weaker enforcement mechanisms.

Nacho Arroniz
@Nacho_arroniz
Those are good news! Definitely stronger enforcement than in the latest EU FTAs, although the climate commitments are equally weak - nothing near as strong as in the EU-UK agreement.

Again I don't think we're heading for the deregulated Singapore-on-Thames many Leave campaigners dreamed of

Strong enforcement of weak rules? Ok. I guess you can't trust the current UKG to uphold its international commitments anyway, so whatever.

Anyway, it's comparing apples to oranges. The UK is not the sovereign equal of the EU, but of France, Germany, etc.

The main trade agreement that most European countries have is the EEA single market and that has much stronger enforcement mechanisms than this or any other FTA. Even the last FTA the EU concluded - the TCA - probably has stronger enforcement mechanisms for the level playing field.

So with regards to enforcement, you gained a way to enforce weak rules on Australia, but lost a way to enforce strong rules on your neighbours, with which you trade much more and where your woke goals, especially on climate, are much more likely to find success.

I guess that is taking control...

[Sheilbh]

Strong enforcement of weak rules? Ok. I guess you can't trust the current UKG to uphold its international commitments anyway, so whatever.

Anyway, it's comparing apples to oranges. The UK is not the sovereign equal of the EU, but of France, Germany, etc.

I don't quite get that point - France and Germany's trade policy is through the EU (largely driven by the Commission). Obviously they're not equal in terms of power but in terms of trade policy the relevant comparison is the EU because that's the trade policy we've left which is why what's interesting

The main trade agreement that most European countries have is the EEA single market and that has much stronger enforcement mechanisms than this or any other FTA. Even the last FTA the EU concluded - the TCA - probably has stronger enforcement mechanisms for the level playing field.

The single market is not just a trade agreement - that talks down the single market in an incredible way. Maybe but the TCA is more than an FTA and not going to be the EU's model for engaging with the world. According to two experts the UK is adopting a more robust approach.

For me the question has always been what happens after Brexit and there's always been a debate and quite a lot of expectation that the UK would go down a race to the bottom route. I never bought that because I don't think those policies have much political support in the UK, so if you tried to do it you'd probably lose the next election. Same reason why I don't think an FTA with the US or China is possible as opposed to just right-wing Leaver fantasy. And I think that's now playing out - I also think it's interesting that it looks like the UK has learned a lot from New Zealand's approach (New Zealand is low-key super-influential their Human Rights Act is also the model that we followed).

So with regards to enforcement, you gained a way to enforce weak rules on Australia, but lost a way to enforce strong rules on your neighbours, with which you trade much more and where your woke goals, especially on climate, are much more likely to find success.

And I think there is an argument over lower commitments but strong enforcement powers v high levels of commitment but weak enforcement. I think that arguably you can even see that within the EU's internal politics where there are relatively high standards but, as we've seen with Poland and Hungary, not great at actually enforcing them. I'd add that we also see it on mass surveillance by public authorities in the EU where the CJEU has set a very high bar but member states are doing nothing to comply with it.

Edit: Oh separately it turns out that Simon Case the Cabinet Secretary investigating parties, hosted a Christmas party on 17 December in his office last year. It was, in fact, in his calendar as "CHRISTMAS PARTY!"

Needless to say he now won't be investigating anything. Instead they've called in Sue Gray who is another senior civil servant and was previously head of ethics and propriety in the civil service under the coalition/Cameron - so she's done reports before. She seems to have a reputation as pretty robust - I saw one writer for the Independent phrase it as "I wondered how long before they'd activate Sue Gray"

Edit: So it turns out the Conservatives haven't held North Shropshire since before there was a Conservative Party - an amazing line from the last Liberal MP for the area, plus ca change:

Stewart Wood
@StewartWood
Pedantic correction: the Liberals won the seat (then 'Oswestry') in a 1904 by-election & held it until 1906. The winning Liberal candidate, Mr Bright, said that "the whole of Shropshire politics has been simply a policy of Tory bluff & the people seemed to have got tired of it".

[Zanza]

The point is that beyond Brexit, there was a deliberate choice by Johnson/Frost/Truss of maximum distance to your home continent. This impedes your woke policy goals, especially in your near neighborhood. It is not just trade, but generally woke goals. There, Britain as a country needs to be compared with its peers, not the supranational organisation its peers created - also to achieve such woke goals. As that is a choice, it makes you wonder how important these goals actually are. Obviously not as important as the dogmatic maximum distance to everything related to the EU. So that makes you wonder about the woke policy goals and their ranking in priority in general.

Even the Australia FTA is supposedly disappointing on climate change (as Australia is one of the worst offenders there), but the deal was concluded anyway. Woke?

On enforcement: I'd argue that both the level of commitment and the level of enforcement is higher in the EU than in an FTA dispute settlement mechanism, even if the level of enforcement in the EU is not as high as it should be to keep up with the high commitments. For that the federal element of the EU is still too weak as countries value their sovereignty. The thing they supposedly do not have according to Brexiteers.

[Sheilbh]

But the Politico article was about trade policy - and the reason it matters is because those policy goals reflect mainstream majority opinion in Britain, despite Brexit, on things like climate, labour rights, women's rights etc. It's why I've never bought the idea that Brexit was really going to lead to wildly weaker standards, or a race to the bottom - it could happen but it just seems incredibly unlikely. I still think that and if even this government is doing stuff like this that seems a pretty clear indicator.

Again on the relationship with the EU post-Brexit I have no doubt it will settle and the UK and EU will work together closely on a lot of issues. I don't know that that actually needs a formal framework and as I say I'm not sure what that relationship looks like because the EU doesn't have it with anyone else.

Incidentally Liz Truss had no decision-making over Brexit. That was very centralised in (and even within) Number 10 for May and Johnson.

[Tamas]

Brexit Secretary David Frost, having clearly been out of his depth, finds great excuse to quit and make it like a moral high ground thing: poor guy doesn't like vaccine passports and taxes:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/18/brexit-minister-lord-frost-resigns-over-covid-plan-b-measures

[Sheilbh]

Brexit Secretary David Frost, having clearly been out of his depth, finds great excuse to quit and make it like a moral high ground thing: poor guy doesn't like vaccine passports and taxes:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/18/brexit-minister-lord-frost-resigns-over-covid-plan-b-measures

That could be pretty damaging for Johnson.

My suspicion is that there's been briefings of the UK position softening and as I said before, I never thought Johnson would use article 16 - I thought he'd bank what he could, overrule Frost and claim victory. I suspect that moment was on its way and Frost decided to use the only bit of leverage he has.

But also Frost was one of three people in cabinet who opposed the tax rises (Rees-Mogg, Frost and Truss), opposed these covid measures and also thought the net zero policies were far too much. So it's not entirely a surprise - and if I'm wrong this was about Brexit itself - then I suspect it's fundamentally about what Brexit is for. Frost gave a speech at a conference last week where he adapted one of the Thatcher's lines: "we have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the EU from Britain with Brexit, only to import that European model after all this time".

I suspect it'll matter for the leadership (and I'm not necessarily sure who that helps) because the next contest will probably turn into a purity contest on Brexit, covid (for the MPs) and possibly being a true Conservative rather than a tax-rising moderate squish like Johnson

Still, as Tim Stanley said, nice to read about a resignation in the Johnson era that doesn't involve the words "lusty" or "clench"

On the other hand - lots of polling now with the Tories basically at around 30%. I think during the Hague/IDS years and during the Miliband/Corbyn years there was a veiw thtat for both bit parties 30% is about the floor for them. What matters is that for most of the last 20-25 years, the Tories have had a significant chunk of voters going to UKIP on the right. It now looks like basically all the voters have moved to parties to the left of them. I think they're going to go through some stuff now because I think all of the pressures in the party for a leadership race are going to push to the right on quite unpopular things (like covid restrictions), while there's no voters to the right of them to unite with and no sign voters are annoyed that the Johnson government's been insufficiently conservative (just that it's failed to deliver, hasn't been competent, reeks of complacency and sleaze etc).

[Richard Hakluyt]

Brexit Secretary David Frost, having clearly been out of his depth, finds great excuse to quit and make it like a moral high ground thing: poor guy doesn't like vaccine passports and taxes:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/18/brexit-minister-lord-frost-resigns-over-covid-plan-b-measures

A complete catastrophe 

How can Britain survive with out him?

[Sheilbh]

And there's rumours of new Allegra Stratton tapes circulating in the media. It is always striking how quickly things can turn once they start moving. Like that Hemingway line about how people go bankrupt - gradually, then suddenly. It's the same, when you look back, with MacMillan, Callaghan, Major, Brown. It feels like everyone in government is briefing against everyone else to try to protect themselves and - rightly - I think the public will be furious at this when it's happening during the new omicron wave.

I've mentioned it before but it is insane to me that a lot of Tory MPs are catering to about 5-10% of people, who are very active on Twitter and in the right-wing press, that oppose covid restrictions etc, while Tory voters are actually some of the strongest supporters of new covid restrictions. In the UK it has not polarised opinions on political lines, but age which makes more sense. So young people are more opposed to covid measures because they are at less risk so it feels like more of an imposition for little benefit (though the majority still support restrictions), while older people are very supportive of covid measures because they are most at risk. The best you could say about it is that it is principled opposition, because there's no political benefit to it.

Edit: Meanwhile - Nadine Dorries has been removed from the WhatsApp group of hardline Tory MPs for defending Johnson:



Separately I think there's possibly something to be written about the impact of WhatsApp on politics here.

[Tamas]

So as I understand from the Guardian article, the above WhatsApp criticism of Johnson come from the far-right of the party? In other words, if he gets coup-ed it will be not from centrists (if they still exist there) wanting to re-introduce normality, but rather radicals who want to dial the retard to 11, frustrated with Johnson dialing it back and forth between 10 and 11.

It's weird because things like the failure of GB TV show this is NOT America yet, a substantial part of the electorate, while may be having fascist/xenophobic leanings, have not subscribed to the nihilistic death cult which has overtaken their US brethren.

It's starting to seem a bit like how Labour went full retard with Corbyn and his circle.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I blame small and unrepresentative party memberships. It is particularly bad for the tories with their membership of 160k or so elderly loons, many of them suspected entryists https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/more-than-half-of-tory-members-would-ruin-party-over-brexit

They talk and listen to each other within a bubble and have drifted too far away from the vaguely right-of-centre not-that-interested-in-politics conservative voter. As you say it is similar to the Corbyn fiasco. Time for a decade in opposition; well gone time really.

[Josquius]

I wonder if I should join the tories just to fuck them up a bit more?
A few people doing this in a seat must be able to have an impact.

So as I understand from the Guardian article, the above WhatsApp criticism of Johnson come from the far-right of the party? In other words, if he gets coup-ed it will be not from centrists (if they still exist there) wanting to re-introduce normality, but rather radicals who want to dial the retard to 11, frustrated with Johnson dialing it back and forth between 10 and 11.

It's weird because things like the failure of GB TV show this is NOT America yet, a substantial part of the electorate, while may be having fascist/xenophobic leanings, have not subscribed to the nihilistic death cult which has overtaken their US brethren.

It's starting to seem a bit like how Labour went full retard with Corbyn and his circle.

The psychos would broadly be the ones to unseat him yes. Though debatable if one of them would take over.

[Sheilbh]

I agree - I think it's probably going to go a bit like Corbyn. There's also pretty vocal criticism from the centre of the party too - for example, Simon Hoare on Frost's resignation:

Simon Hoare MP
@Simon4NDorset
If true I can't say I'm sorry. He was unsuited to the "doing of politics", never understood the need for personal rapport or the importance of trust. I hope whoever takes over will be from the Commons where we can all question directly.

Or (probably the best recent Northern Ireland Secretary) Julian Smith:

Julian Smith MP
@JulianSmithUK
The interests of Northern Ireland - across community now has to be the priority as the government finalises its negotiations with the EU. Pragmatism and solutions for both unionists and nationalists is key.  Dogma has run its course.

It's too soon to tell what eventually happens - but that WhatsApp group of about 100 MPs has a lot of serial rebels who made Cameron's life very difficult, got rid of May and are now moving against Johnson. It feels like there's a lot of Tory MPs who are quite used to rebelling now.

I don't know who benefits. Johnson is an exception in being the front-runner who then went on to win, but in general that isn't the norm (Cameron, IDS, Hague, Major etc were not favourites - and all of May's rivals imploded which was weird). It feels most likely to be Truss or Sunak, but I think there could be a dark horse candidate and may be someone with clean hands from the backbenches. Incidentally I find the line I'm seeing on Truss as the untested "populist" radical v Sunak as the steady moderate a bit weird - it feels very based on style and not much else.

It feels like the big thing is there is a very strong anti-lockdown/restrictions group in the parliamentary party now and a strong desire for a move to be more clearly low tax/small state. I'm not quite sure if those groups have enough to have both of the final candidates - and Sunak and Truss don't easily fit into them. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if, for example, Jeremy Hunt managed to come through the middle as the candidate of the "sensibles" on covid and as a safe pair of hands.

I think hanging over all this is that they've got Brexit, they've got the Brexit they wanted, they've got an 80 eat majority and it's all going to waste/not leading to the transformation they dreamed of. You'd hope that at some point they'd ask if that maybe has to do with their expectations - but I'm not sure that'll ever happen

But the thought that they're wasting their first strong majority in 30 years with nothing to show for it is, I think, going to be a big part of the debate.

I blame small and unrepresentative party memberships. It is particularly bad for the tories with their membership of 160k or so elderly loons, many of them suspected entryists https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/more-than-half-of-tory-members-would-ruin-party-over-brexit

They talk and listen to each other within a bubble and have drifted too far away from the vaguely right-of-centre not-that-interested-in-politics conservative voter. As you say it is similar to the Corbyn fiasco. Time for a decade in opposition; well gone time really.

Although with the Tories it's more the radicalising parliamentary party which is the issues because of how their leadership system works - especially on covid where I think they'll have a purity test on that which is directly opposed by their voters (and their members are somewhere in the middle). It's a really weird and extreme example of an echo chamber/bubble in effect. But it also just feels like too much player power - after Cameron, May and now Johnson I'm not sure the Tory party are capable of being led at the minute (which is another 90s throwback - we even have John Redwood back giving his views).

Of course with Labour it was the members not the MPs, the MPs were just stupid enough to nominate someone they passionately disagreed with and thought was unfit to be leader to "widen the debate"

[Sheilbh]

I wonder if I should join the tories just to fuck them up a bit more?

With their system I don't think it would make a difference - the MPs whittle it down to two candidates and then the members get a vote. They're also not big on letting member make policy decisions, I think someone summed it up as "the Liberal Democrat conference thinks it makes policy and it does, the Labour conference thinks it makes policy but doesn't and the Conservative conference knows it doesn't make policy and doesn't care"

A few people doing this in a seat must be able to have an impact.

Maybe - but I think even there the Tories tend to be pretty centralised and there's a lot of hoops to jump through to get on the approved candidates list.

[Zanza]

Let's see if the libertarian sovereignist wing will now triumph over the remaining conservatives and fully take over the Tory party.

But whether you can win the red wall with supply side economics and privatization of the NHS is at least doubtful.

[Sheilbh]

But whether you can win the red wall with supply side economics and privatization of the NHS is at least doubtful.

Quite.

This is the contradiction at the heart of Brexit and the 2019 election. The people who voted Leave are broadly speaking demographics that favour a relatively big state, security and are quite left-leaning economically (the elderly, working class voters etc). Anyone who thinks that the coalition that got Leave to 52% wants "radical supply side reforms" is very wrong. And, under May (especially) and Johnson the Tory coalition has broadly consolidated the Leave vote (plus 25% of Remainers) - that's the coalition they chose to try and build around. I think May's 2017 manifesto was actually pretty honest about the shift it would require in traditional Tory policies/priorities, while Johnson's was vague at best. That contradiction was exposed for Labour early because they tried to have the best of both worlds (a new deal, then a second referendum and the Labour party/government wouldn't take a side) which is always difficult. The Tories went for building around the Leave vote, but the party isn't fully behind what that means in terms of their future policy.

And this is now going to play out through our politics - and I don't know how it works or what the "re-alignment" looks like. But we're going to see the consequences of the Leave leaders and now the Tory party not politically reflecting the coalition of Leave voters. The challenge for all parties, I think, is to work out what their post-Brexit coalition is and I think there are challenges on all fronts. How does an ideologically right-wing, free-marketish conservative party coalesce when it's biggest supporters are pensioners and working class voters, who prioritise security over "freedom" or grwth? Similarly how does Labour expand from young places like London, the big cities and university towns - is it back to the old heartlands of working class voters who may have a very different vision of Britain or do they do a flip and position themselves as a pro-growth party so also the aspirational suburbs? And for the Lib Dems do they go back for their old heartland where they have activists and councillors that were Liberal for over 100 years until 2015, but often voted Leave, or do they try and build a new Remain-focused party of the upper middle class in the "Blue wall"? The Lib Dems can do both in by-election but because they're a small party with limited resources and relatively few activists in a general election, they will need to choose.

Although privatisation of the NHS is never going to be on the cards and, given the Tories have been in charge for about two-thirds of the NHS's existence at some point we should start treating it as the distracting, unfalsifiable conspiracy theory it is on the left. And I actually think it's bad politics as well because every Labour campaign for the last 75 years has said it's the last election to save the NHS - which hasn't been true, so I think people see through it now and the better line is underinvestment, bad public services, constant reorganisations, no real reform etc.

And there are lots of unknowns like what the really hard-core FBPE/re-joiners do. So far they don't appear to be remotely political to me. They act and talk like liberal commentators who expect things to go their way because they're "right" rather than actual political activists who have to convince people. I don't see a re-join party working but I think there's probably enough people where this is their issue to succeed if they wanted in an entryist take-over of the Lib Dems - I don't know if they'll do that (it's what I'd argue is their best option).