Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I totally agree.

[viper37]

Yeah I think in a perverse way Brexit makes the call of independence more attractive, but the practical reality far more difficult. Though there would still be very significant issues that affected people's everyday lives (and not just in the Borders) - the deficit, pensions, currency, defence etc.

I don't know how that tension between increasing the political relevance of independence and it becoming more difficult will be resolved. My suspicion is that in the long term if the union can survive this period - ie after this government, it will make independence less likely.

I think the SNP are being very coy about the costs and impact of independence. Some of the stuff they're saying is just not going to happen - rUK will not continue to pay for Scottish pensions, for example. But there is a lot of pushback against this and I think it's less people imagining the alternative than hearing all the stuff about costs and either thinking it will be lower, or that it's worth it. And that could be right - who makes decision that affect you and who has power to make laws that bind you is a really important issue, especially in a democratic society. But basically, again, every sin people accuse the Tories or Brexiters very much has an SNP analogue.

Pensions, the way I see it, is people who paid for it should keep receiving it, no matter the nationality.  If a Canadian pensioner emigrated outside of Canada, he would not lose his pension.  He would still pay Canadian income tax on it, though.

I don't see why that should be different in the case of political seperation.  It's the money people paid.  If the UK keeps it, it is simple theft.

What should happen though, and what should have happened before is as Quebec did (well, we did it before Canada ) is for Scotland to create its own pension fund before it even went to an independence referendum.

Obviously, any question of independence raises complex issues that should ideally be solved beforehand.

[Sheilbh]

Pensions, the way I see it, is people who paid for it should keep receiving it, no matter the nationality.  If a Canadian pensioner emigrated outside of Canada, he would not lose his pension.  He would still pay Canadian income tax on it, though.

I don't see why that should be different in the case of political seperation.  It's the money people paid.  If the UK keeps it, it is simple theft.

What should happen though, and what should have happened before is as Quebec did (well, we did it before Canada ) is for Scotland to create its own pension fund before it even went to an independence referendum.

Obviously, any question of independence raises complex issues that should ideally be solved beforehand.

Yeah I mean state pension. So people have their work pensions in various funds and enrollment is mandatory now. There'd be stuff to work out around those funds and payments but it would basically be fine.

But the state pension is universal - it is based on the number of years you worked and is a flat rate (which is quite low). It's just paid out of revenue but if you worked in the UK for enough years you are entitled to a state pension even if you move overseas.

The argument was over who would pay the state pension of existing pensions in an independent Scotland, with some in the SNP saying the rUK government would on the same basis as it pays state pensions to people who move abroad. Which is clearly not how it would work in the event of independence 

And yeah I agree there'd be lots of issues and independence would be a negotiated process over many years to resolve them as much as you can.

[Admiral Yi]

The argument was over who would pay the state pension of existing pensions in an independent Scotland, with some in the SNP saying the rUK government would on the same basis as it pays state pensions to people who move abroad. Which is clearly not how it would work in the event of independence 

That's ridiculous.  They would have the revenue stream that funds the pensions, they would have to pay them.

[Sheilbh]

More and more allegations coming out about Chris Pincher - I suspect he'll have to stand down eventually.

It feels again like Owen Paterson (and numerous other cases) where Number 10 thought they could style it out only for more and more stories to come out, to the immense frustration of backbenchers. In particular the statements from the Whips and Number 10 have shifted from not being away of any allegations, to not being aware of any specific allegations, to being aware of one matter.

As well as all the allegations there's the detail that Johnson used to refer to him as "Pincher by name, pincher by nature" and apparently said to MPs durinig his leadership run, in reference to Pincher, that his campaign had the support of "all the sex pests".

According to journalists it was a surprise to many of them when Pincher was appointed Deputy Chief Whip (which does have a pastoral-ish element) because of all the allegations about him. Similarly backbench MPs are apparently furious over the defence but there was disquiet at the appointment because a number of Pincher's victims are fellow MPs.

Separately I think there's a bit of an issue that needs to be explored about young men in Westminster. I've mentioned before how many of the victims of alleged sexual misconduct in Westminster are men and that it is very gay place. But I slightly wonder if that is actually making it more difficult for stories to come out because there's a bit of sexism about it - men are seen as in a better position to push back, it's more embarrassing etc. I wonder if it's just not taken very seriously, that whole idea that you can sexually harass a man. Hopefully that culture can shift but it was striking that I heard a female journalist say she knows male journalists who've had the exact same uncomfortable experiences in Westminster as she has - just different MPs.

Edit: It matters for Johnson because the 1922 executive is coming up for election - that's the committee for the parliamentary Conservative Party which basically decides whether to get rid of a leader or not. The executive decide the rules of those votes of no confidence (including how often they can happen). From what I understand there's a united anti-Johnson slate of candidates from all wings of the party (the current executive is pretty anti-Johnson already) and Johnson's trying to find some way of getting more supportive/loyalist backbenchers elected.

[The Larch]

More broadly I think the context of accession has changed. The EU has just disappointed the Western Balkan countries again. They are warning (through member states) that it will take Ukraine many years, even after peace. Even ignoring Turkey, there have been candidates in the accession process for about 20 years. Scotland should be closer on the acquis because the UK hasn't really diverged from the EU on anything yet, but I think the EU would be aware how toxic it would look to Eastern Europe - particularly in the context of Ukraine - if Scotland was just waved through. I think Scotland would join, but I don't think it'd be quick or easy.

I get that Western Balkans countries might be unhappy with how slow the process is going, but the truth is that they're extremely slow themselves with their administrative work that they have to fulfill in order to join the EU. Montenegro, which is I believe the country that is actually closest to getting in, has still only finished 3 out of 30 something chapters of acquis communitaire legal work, so any other country is still a long way to go even in the best possible situation, which we currently aren't in in any case.

But 2013-14 was also the time of (and Larch will kill me) peak Spanish opposition because there were pushes at exactly the same time for a Catalan referendum. Rajoy and the Spanish foreign minister made comments that basically they wouldn't block Scotland necessarily, but it would be outside the EU and a third country etc and need to apply like anyone else from the outside.

Don't worry, I like you, it will be painless.  It has to be mentioned that attitudes from Spain would be quite different under a PP government like back then than under a PSOE government like right now. Also, the situation in Catalonia has cooled off.

[Tamas]

I mean, if Catalonia could be pre-negotiated to go straight back into the EU, wouldn't that be fair?

[The Larch]

I mean, if Catalonia could be pre-negotiated to go straight back into the EU, wouldn't that be fair?

I don't know if the EU would want to get involved on that. And EU membership is not something that any of the involved parties can offer otherwise.

[Josquius]

Looks like I'm most likely not going to vote labour next election.

BBC News - Labour will do Brexit better than Tories, says Keir Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62034754

[Sheilbh]

I think it's absolutely the right move and probably the only plausible one

Very much in line with what David Lammy had already trailed - I slightly wonder if Starmer/Labour are actually hoping for a big negative reaction from Rejoiners and people who are still mainly Remainers.

[Tamas]

I think it's absolutely the right move and probably the only plausible one

Yeah that far-right vote which cares passionately for hard Brexit is as good as secured for Labour now.

[Sheilbh]

It's not about voters who passionately care about this Brexit deal. It's about the vast majority of voters who basically think there was a legitimate democratic vote (whether it went the way you wanted or not), who think that should be accepted by politicians (whether they agree with it or not) and want to move on from that debate.

I think people aren't wedded to any particular model now - but pragmatic changes and working with our neighbours and allies, while accepting where we are rather than trying to undo it is, I think, an approach that will be popular. I think it's exactly the right approach - accept reality as it actually exists and work on practical, pragmatic with Europe.

In time, maybe, people will want to look at the principle again but we are, in my view, at least a decade or two from that.

Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, gave a really interesting speech to the Fabians today and he pointed it would also be incredibly difficult for Labour to be suggesting the 2016 referendum shouldn't stand and needs to be unpicked, while arguing in Scotland that the 2014 referendum stands and shouldn't be re-run. It has to pick one.

Interesting piece from Paul Waugh arguing that, perhaps, Starmer should go further:

Maybe it's time Keir Starmer publicly admitted advocating a second Brexit referendum was a mistake
Analysis Starmer calls on Boris Johnson to own his mistakes, but he still hasn't taken responsibility for his party's 2019 election Brexit policy
July 4, 2022 2:08 pm(Updated 3:23 pm)

When Keir Starmer was interrupted by left-wingers during his party conference speech in Brighton last year, one of the heckles came as he highlighted Jeremy Corbyn's 2019 general election disaster. Just as Starmer blamed the defeat on policies that lacked "credibility", one activist shouted: "It was your Brexit policy!"

The Labour leader won a standing ovation as he hit back at the heckling. But that ovation that was a reminder of another one – and that the very first time he sparked real, impassioned cheers from the party faithful was also over Brexit.

Back in 2018, Starmer triggered a gutteral roar from Labour delegates as he pushed the envelope of party policy about holding a second referendum on the UK's relations with the EU. "Nobody is ruling out Remain as an option!" he said, to a tidal wave of applause.

The video clip of that moment, including his use of the R-word, has been stored in the Tory party's attack unit vaults for regular deployment ahead of the next general election. Conservatives are convinced it will go down very well in the "Red Wall" and ram home that Starmer cannot be trusted not to unpick the 2016 vote.

After years of being accused of adopting Basil Fawlty's "don't mention the war" approach, Starmer is today making a big speech in which he will declare that Labour will not reverse Brexit. Moreover, he will firmly rule out rejoining the EU single market, customs union or freedom of movement.

Instead, he'll propose some ways to improve "the poor deal Boris Johnson signed", particularly to ease trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including plans to reduce red tape on things like veterinary checks and professional qualifications.

Given recent polling showing a rising number of people think Brexit has made "daily life worse" – including a doubling of Leave voters who felt that way (up from 10 per cent to 22 per cent) – there is certainly a case for Labour to press home on how it would improve Johnson's deal.

Yet if Starmer's speech feels largely defensive, that may be because he has a lot to be defensive about. And this is where we come back to what that activist called "your Brexit policy" for the 2019 election.

It's worth saying that the hodge-podge of a policy at the last election ("a choice between a sensible Leave deal or Remain") was not only Starmer's. It came from the party conference and senior shadow Cabinet left-wingers too. After Labour came third in the 2019 Euro elections on just 14 per cent of the vote, John McDonnell said the party had to take the issue "back to people in a public vote" with "all options". Diane Abbott said: "We need to listen to our members."

Yet, Starmer was his party's Shadow Brexit Secretary. And it's worth recalling that in the long "Brexit wars" from 2016 to 2019, he was not a mere observer but a very active participant. During private talks between Theresa May's Government and Corbyn's team to try and find a compromise Brexit deal that could get through the hung Parliament, her former chief of staff Gavin Barwell claimed in his memoir: "Starmer was not prepared to settle for anything that didn't include a confirmatory vote."

That's a contrast with today's Starmer, who says "nothing about revisiting those rows will help stimulate growth or bring down food prices or help British business thrive". For some in his party, his speech is a pointless own goal, resurrecting a row Labour doesn't need (with Tories but also with Sadiq Khan, who backs a return to the single market).

Yet the bigger problem for Starmer is inauthenticity. One party insider described the leader's new tougher line in favour of Brexit thus: "Starmer doesn't believe this and everyone knows it and it just makes him look fake."

And the charge of flip-flopping is sure to be used mercilessly by the Tories. On freedom of movement, for example, Starmer will this evening say: "We will not return to freedom of movement to create short-term fixes."

This has echoes of the 2017 election, when he successfully secured the inclusion in the manifesto a pledge to end free movement of EU citizens. Yet, by the 2019 manifesto he said the whole issue would be up for "negotiation" with Brussels. And in his own leadership campaign he pledged to "defend free movement as we leave the EU".

Similarly, what's not often noted is that Starmer shifted position on a second referendum itself. Labour MPs in Leave areas remember him telling them in 2017 that he was dead against a "People's Vote". That year, Yvettee Cooper had declared her own opposition too. In a remark that after the 6 January Capitol riot now looks prescient, she said: "Nobody said 'well you know what, I'm just not going to respect the result afterwards' – that's the kind of thing that Donald Trump says."

But when hopes of cross-party agreement on a Brexit deal disappeared, Starmer seemed to slowly change his mind and helped shift Labour crab-like towards its 2019 referendum fudge. Just as Boris Johnson played to his party's gallery by backing Brexit, Starmer tried to woo the faithful for a future leadership bid by backing a referendum, one backbencher muttered to me at the time.

Starmer allies certainly believe that he won't get a hearing with some voters he needs to win back unless he commits to not reversing Brexit (which is why he insisted Labour voted for Johnson's deal in 2020). They add that Rachel Reeves' campaign to "make, sell and buy more in Britain" is part of a new confidence on the issue. And sending a message that Starmer will "get Brexit done", but more competently than Johnson, is not an unworthy ambition.

The real question mark for some of his colleagues is Starmer's political competence, not his managerial competence. Last week he said of Labour's next manifesto that "we're starting from scratch, the slate is wiped clean". But on Brexit he may not be able to wipe his own slate clean with some voters unless he is more honest about his own mistakes.

Starmer has been bold in saying he would quit if fined for breaking Covid rules. Maybe he could be similarly bold in admitting it was an error to call for a second referendum on Brexit? He calls on Johnson to own his mistakes and to take responsibility for them, but on his party's 2019 election Brexit policy he's not done either.

Still, what Starmer now believes or doesn't about Brexit is secondary to his more pressing challenge. And that's telling the voters what kind of alternative Prime Minister he would be and what kind of alternative government his Labour party would provide.

It is interesting that I'm seeing the hard left and the right (generally not Johnson loyalists for obvious reasons) unite in attacking Starmer as untrustworthy. It's been the left's line (with some justification) since he basically ran as the candidate of Corbynism without Corbyn including 10 policy promises, many of which he's now dumped and he's kicked Corbyn out the party. It's interesting to see the right pick that up in there attacks on him - that he'll back out of any promise he makes.

[Tamas]

It's not about voters who passionately care about this Brexit deal. It's about the vast majority of voters who basically think there was a legitimate democratic vote (whether it went the way you wanted or not), who think that should be accepted by politicians (whether they agree with it or not) and want to move on from that debate.

Can we not be honest with each other and admit it's not that (we debated endlessly how fuzzy was the scope of the vote), it's simply that people are exhausted and because they cannot comprehend the generation-long disadvantages this decision entails, just want to stop hearing about it?

[garbon]

Does the average voter care about what Labour said in 2019?

[garbon]

It's not about voters who passionately care about this Brexit deal. It's about the vast majority of voters who basically think there was a legitimate democratic vote (whether it went the way you wanted or not), who think that should be accepted by politicians (whether they agree with it or not) and want to move on from that debate.

Can we not be honest with each other and admit it's not that (we debated endlessly how fuzzy was the scope of the vote), it's simply that people are exhausted and because they cannot comprehend the generation-long disadvantages this decision entails, just want to stop hearing about it?

Right? After all, a legitimate democratic vote could be overturned by another vote if there were any interest.