Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Looks like something's moving on the NIP deal - VDL coming to London tomorrow and Sefcovic briefing ambassadors. In the press release VDL is coming to continue work on the deal in person with Sunak, but in reality they wouldn't be having that sort of meeting if it wasn't basically done.

At this stage it looks like Sunak has kept the two former ERG chairs in his government and they're aren't reports of any resignations. Mark Francois is still issuing warnings from the ERG - they've not seen the deal yet but their call on it apparently had only about 20 MPs dialling in. If there are under 40 rebels then it'll be pretty manageable for Sunak.

The roll-out may fuck things up and everything, I think, hangs on the DUP. Arguably the government might decide to press ahead without DUP support in which case they change the deal, in their view they fix a lot of the issues that anger unionists and try to create support for a new status quo - with the awareness that a Labour government is coming. It might work but I think more likely is you need at least some support from the DUP and, probably, backing from the UUP.

Separately I enjoyed this piece from John Harris who's always worth reading - the "good old cause" has been something I've thought about around Brexit for a while. It is also particularly striking that the most radical/irreconcilable are centred on East Anglia and Lincolnshire. Similarly I've always thought there is something interesting about Puritans v Laudians, country v court, Tory v Whig in the culture wars - that it is like so much in politics more of a cycle than we acknowledge (and one of the reasons I think the religious comparison isn't totally wrong - and certainly isn't meant in a dismissive way). Of course it is particularly striking that a strand of the United States' foundation was created by the more irreconcilables of those 17th century culture wars.

Where I'd slightly wonder if we're out of the revolutionary phase is it's not clear what'll happen with the Tories - if the polls hold up to the next election and they really are reduced to under 100 MPs then we're not quite in restoration territory. Similarly I wonder what'll happen after the election because I suspect they might really radicalise quite rapidly (although my default assumption is still that Badenoch will win). But also while I agree that Starmer's "missions" are nebulous (by design) there are significant divergences in Starmer's policies from New Labour and I think it would be settling on politics in a different place than the Thatcher-Blair consensus if he succeeds. The forms may return but I'm not sure there's much clamour for a restoration of the foundational political economy of that era (except, ironically, from the pro-European ultras):

A union renewed, two-party politics revived: is this the new Restoration? Sunak and Starmer hope so
John Harris
In their own different ways, the two leaders dream of a return to 'normality' – but that's what got us into this mess
Sun 26 Feb 2023 13.13 GMT
Last modified on Sun 26 Feb 2023 13.42 GMT

Eight long years ago, British politics began its passage into a new era of disruption and upheaval. The Scottish independence referendum of 2014 had already highlighted the weaknesses of politics-as-usual, but everything turned on the 2015 general election, in which David Cameron secured the win that set Britain on the path to Brexit, and Nicola Sturgeon's SNP took 40 of Scotland's Westminster seats from Labour. Confirming that we had arrived somewhere new, Nigel Farage and the UK Independence party managed to get nearly 4 million votes.

By the year's end, the legislation for the 2016 referendum on Britain's membership of the EU had received royal assent, and Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of the opposition. The ensuing years would see our drawn-out departure from Europe, Labour's revival at the election of 2017 and its rout only two years later, pro- and anti-Brexit protests, an insatiable Conservative party spitting out four prime ministers, and the rising sense that the United Kingdom itself would perhaps not survive.

But now look. Sturgeon is about to quit as first minister, and the cause of Scottish independence has reached an impasse. Corbyn has been barred from even standing as a Labour candidate. Farage maintains a mischievous political presence, but now that Brexit is falling into disgrace, the discrepancy between his bark and bite is surely at an all-time high. Ten days ago, the Economist ran an article heralding Britain's "great moderation": of late, it said, "the image of Britain as a land of phlegmatic common sense has taken a beating", but all these recent changes point to the return of pragmatism, calm and "a more rational form of politics".

As one era gives way to another, and we are readied for the coronation of Charles III, it may not be a coincidence that a comparable period of history seems to be back in fashion. Over the past 18 months, a handful of acclaimed new books have been published about the 17th century, the 11 volatile years England spent as a republic, and how ferment and ideological conflict led on to the restoration of the monarchy.

In Clare Jackson's Devil-Land, Anna Keay's The Restless Republic and the just-published The Blazing World by the Oxford historian Jonathan Healey, clear lines can be drawn from the present to the past: 400 years is perhaps not that long, and amid stories of a country seen by Europeans as a byword for "rebellion, religious extremism and regime change", you can make out enduring national traits and recurring themes.

Whereas the 21st century is the age of social media, politics back then was shaken up by the spread of pamphlets and "newsbooks". Then, as now, conspiracy theories and misinformation abounded. Huge questions surrounded England's relationships with Scotland and Ireland, and there were moral conflicts and what would now be considered culture wars. Moreover, just as support for Brexit and Scottish independence was rooted in many people's impatience with established authority and strong sense of neglect, so was the appeal of the factions and sects that made the mid-17th century such a wellspring of ideas and revolt.

But then came the death of Oliver Cromwell, a collective sigh of exhaustion and exasperation, and the arrival on the throne of Charles II. As Healey's book puts it, the restoration of the monarchy was greeted as deliverance from a "world of confusions" and "unheard-of governments". The king's return was also a reminder of the English mistrust of ideologues and zealots, and the fact that protracted political conflict tended to leave most people weary and perplexed.

A kind of latter-day restorationism now dominates both main Westminster parties. Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt clearly want voters to forget the misrule of Boris Johnson and the ideological contortions of Liz Truss, and think of his leadership in terms of the fiscally stringent Conservatism that secured Cameron his majority back in 2015.

The sales pitch is a technocratic quietening of Tory unrest, exemplified by the attempted resolution of the Northern Ireland protocol, which at one point was set to involve the King. But clearly, Conservative passions are still boiling away, as proved by the weekend's warnings from Johnson and his allies that a deal with the EU could trigger – appropriately enough – "civil war".

Sunak presents himself as the technocratic full-stop after all those years of Tory unrest, with the resolution of the Northern Ireland protocol clearly envisaged as the final act of the Brexit drama.

At the top of the Labour party, a nostalgic orthodoxy runs even deeper. As his speech last week outlining five "national missions" reminded us, Keir Starmer does not use a particularly moral vocabulary, or offer much of an expansive vision. Beyond his creditable plans for a greener economy, everything blurs into a familiar mixture of toughness on crime and talk of "opportunity", and his somewhat improbable quest for the "highest sustained growth in the G7".

His chosen form of politics is undeniably reminiscent of New Labour, but a later vintage than 1997: back then, Tony Blair was prone to biblical homilies about our shared duties to one another, whereas Starmer seems keener on the kind of bland formulations that came later. ("Britain forward not back" was the title of Labour's 2005 manifesto.)

When senior Conservative and Labour figures recently met for a two-day "private discussion" about the failings of Brexit and how to put things right – a restoration-ish move if ever there was one – the latter included the veteran New Labour courtier Peter Mandelson, now once again an influential presence in Labour circles. His old masters Gordon Brown and Blair are once again regular guests on radio and TV programmes, and in newspaper comment sections.

The newly confirmed candidate for East Lothian, the seat that tops Labour's list of targets in Scotland, is Douglas Alexander, who served in the cabinet under Blair and Brown, and was one of the latter's closest confidants; in nearby Midlothian, the party's chosen hopeful is Kirsty McNeill, a former Brown adviser. That fallen Blairite prince David Miliband says that his possible return to Labour politics "has not been decided yet", but other faces from the past are definitely back: the high-rolling New Labour donor Lord Sainsbury, for example, has just announced his return with an extraordinary £2m boost to party funds.

History suggests that restoration, stability and continuity have their uses, and that most people understandably prefer them to disruption and noise. In Healey's view, by the end of the 17th century, the English republic's febrile years were only a memory, and "a new world had arisen". The picture he paints suggests a pre-industrial version of levelling up: "Even labourers were earning more, and famine was now a thing of the past ... Towns were reborn as social hubs, rebuilt in brick and boasting coffee houses, theatres and concert halls. Trade was now the mainstay of economic life in a thriving market economy."

Here, though, is the problem. As I read those words, my thoughts kept returning to a present dominated by strikes, shortages, hunger and news of a country in an even worse state than it was back in 2015. In that context, whether historical comparisons ring true or not, the return of politics-as-usual prompts a huge question: weren't its failures what triggered all that chaos and ferment in the first place?

Also I moaned a lot about Biden's project as restorationism. However my view on the US has always been the best thing Democrats can do - if they can somehow get the votes - is to do stuff with power. I see Biden on a small positive rating which is rare at this time of the cycle and look at his achievements: further pandemic stimulus, Chips Act, IRA, Ukraine - and I think it's arguably the most impressive return of any President I can remember. He is getting stuff done and people approve. I'm not sure the same won't happen here.

Edit: FWIW my guess is the DUP basically neither accept nor reject - they don't rule it out as failing on constitutional grounds but also don't accept it immediately. There may be some work on appearances with them. As I say I often think of Jonathan Powell, who was Blair's Chief of Staff during the Good Friday Agreement negotiations, talking about that and saying that neither nationalists or unionists were in a position to accept an agreement. So the key to success was creating enough common ground in constructively ambiguous areas that both sides could legitimately sign up. I think that's where we are will be for a while in Northern Ireland itself - it's the creative work of building that ambiguity and it'll mainly be done by Westminster and Dublin I expect within the content of what's agreed with the EU.

The ERG will try to revolt but don't have the numbers. Boris Johnson will gesture at opposition for his own purposes but ultimately row in and back the deal once he realises there's not a big enough revolt. Obvs a hostage to fortune and may all go tits up, but that's my read on where we are now.

[Sheilbh]

Great year for traditional Labour tabloids. This from the Daily Record (after their English sister paper broke all the partygate stories) - I mentioned the fraud investigation in the surprise and suddenness of Sturgeon's resignation, so interesting to see this story and what more may come:

Cops quizzed senior SNP members over fraud allegations days before Nicola Sturgeon's resignation
Former treasurer Douglas Chapman spoke to detectives and other key figures were contacted in connection with the probe.
ByJohn Ferguson
    04:30, 26 FEB 2023Updated07:56, 26 FEB 2023

Police interviewed senior SNP members over fraud allegations days before Nicola Sturgeon's shock resignation.

Former treasurer Douglas Chapman spoke to detectives and other key figures were contacted in connection with the probe into claims of £600,000 of missing ring-fenced referendum cash – codenamed Operation Branchform.

Chief executive Peter Murrell, who is married to the First Minister, has yet to be contacted.

Our revelations come amid demands for independent adjudicators to be brought in to oversee the SNP leadership election process, over which Murrell is understood to have almost complete control.

A source said: "Douglas Chapman spoke to police in the days before the First Minister caught everyone out with her resignation announcement.

"Several other former officials from the party's governing body were contacted around the same time. The investigation seems to be homing in on a number of specific transactions so this is clearly a live investigation which is gathering pace.

"We don't know whether Murrell or Sturgeon have been interviewed but it seems inconceivable that the chief executive would not be contacted at some point.

"He is the only person who had complete oversight and control over all aspects of accounts, how any money was spent and, ultimately, all key decisions. Whether or not this investigation played any part in the FM's decision to announce her resignation when she did, we may never know.

"It was something that was going to happen but everyone, including her most senior ministers, were caught out by the timing."

Dunfermline and West Fife MP Chapman resigned as treasurer of the party in May 2021, claiming he had "not received the support of financial information" and is understood to have been interviewed as a potential witness.

Several other officials also resigned amid claims Murrell refused to give access to the accounts and are believed to be among others contacted by police in recent weeks.

It's since emerged Murrell gave a loan of £107,620 to the party to help it out with a "cash flow" issue after the last election in June 2021.

Sturgeon has said she "can't recall" when she learned of the loan but said it came from Murrell's own "resources".

The loan was made just months after the Sunday Mail first revealed the fraud investigation in April 2021.

Electoral Commission records show Murrell handed the SNP the loan on June 20, 2021, with no security against it and no fixed interest rate. The watchdog was not notified until August 11, 2022.

It was also told an instalment of £26,905 was repaid on August 18, 2021, followed by a further instalment of £20,715 on October 25, 2021.

Failing to disclose a political donation or loan can result in sanctions from the Electoral Commission, which may also decide to refer the matter to police.

Meanwhile, former SNP health secretary Alex Neil has demanded independent adjudicators are brought in to oversee the leadership battle between Humza Yousaf, Kate Forbes and Ash Regan.

He said: "I think we need to have independent oversight of this election process. We aren't just electing a party leader here. The winner will immediately also become Scotland's first minister – so there needs to be absolute confidence in the process.

"Ideally it would be the Electoral Commission which would take on this job or a body like that.

"We need to be sure, for example, that the electronic process through which SNP members will be voting is secure and not open to abuse by foreign powers.

"It is not really acceptable that the SNP chief executive should be playing such a central role. I am not accusing anyone of anything but it is clear the party hierarchy have a preferred candidate."

It is understood that Murrell will have access in real time to how members are voting from the moment the polls open at midday on March 13 and close at midday on March 27.

The SNP has said its national secretary will make the results of the contest public as soon as the result has been determined and after the candidates have been advised.

A source said: "It is clear the party's hierarchy favour Humza Yousaf. As chief executive, Peter Murrell will have real time access to voting. It is information that would be extremely useful to any one candidate.

"Everyone should have this information or nobody should have it, that is why independent adjudication is essential."

The Police Scotland probe into allegations of a £600,000 donation fraud was launched last year after it was claimed money had been illegally diverted from a "ringfenced" fund to fight an independence referendum. It centres on funds raised in 2017 and 2019.

The row sparked the resignation of several senior nationalists from the party's ruling national executive committee after claims Murrell had refused them permission to see party accounts.

Criminal complaints are understood to have been received from at least 19 people.

Edinburgh South MP Joanna Cherry said she was standing down from the NEC over "transparency and scrutiny concerns". Three other members resigned from the party's finance and audit committee.

The Scottish Conservatives said: "The SNP have been circling the wagons on this money for almost three years.

"Now a police investigation is in full swing, we have to hope that answers will come out and fast."

Fundraising documentation said the cash would be "ring-fenced" and only spent on a referendum campaign. However, the SNP's accounts showed less than £100,000 in the bank at the end of 2019, despite the fact a referendum had not been held.

Police Scotland said: "A report which outlines inquiries already undertaken and seeks further instruction has been submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service."

The Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, as law officer of the government, has stepped aside and it is understood that Crown agent John Logue is overseeing the case.

The Crown Office said: "COPFS will continue to work with police in this ongoing investigation."

The SNP said: "We are cooperating fully with the investigation."

[Sheilbh]

So the deal is being agreed at Windsor and VDL will meet the King

I still don't really get the controversy over this. It is common for dignitaries to meet the monarch - who is in Windsor. I don't really understand how some journalists interpreted/covered that as implying royal approval or involvement in politics. It feels very much like a story that only happens with Westminster talking to itself and getting slightly feverish.

I saw one Northern Irish poster suggest that for their next trick they should convince London journalists that nationalists only use four in hand when wearing a tie

[Sheilbh]

Oh RIP Betty Boothroyd

[Richard Hakluyt]

So the deal is being agreed at Windsor and VDL will meet the King

I still don't really get the controversy over this. It is common for dignitaries to meet the monarch - who is in Windsor. I don't really understand how some journalists interpreted/covered that as implying royal approval or involvement in politics. It feels very much like a story that only happens with Westminster talking to itself and getting slightly feverish.

I saw one Northern Irish poster suggest that for their next trick they should convince London journalists that nationalists only use four in hand when wearing a tie

I mean it must be a major part of his job description to schmooze with important people 

I checked the commentariat over at the Daily Mail...its a stitchup and both Charles and VDL work for the WEF 

Pity about Betty Boothroyd, though 93 is a decent age, she was an entertaining and highly competent Speaker...I think she helped the cause of women getting to have important jobs a very helpful push.

[The Larch]

WEF?

[Richard Hakluyt]

World Economic Forum

Daily mail commenters are convinced that they are running the show from behind the scenes....

[Josquius]

I know someone who works for them. Its interesting how cobbled together the actual organisation is. Quite amazing they're able to get all these big global players showing up.

[Tamas]

I know someone who works for them. Its interesting how cobbled together the actual organisation is. Quite amazing they're able to get all these big global players showing up.

I think its clear anyone who believes some group is micro-managing the world has not worked for any organisation of mid-size or above (certainly not at a level of having at least the slightest overview of it, otherwise they'd realise how impossible that is.

[Sheilbh]

Pity about Betty Boothroyd, though 93 is a decent age, she was an entertaining and highly competent Speaker...I think she helped the cause of women getting to have important jobs a very helpful push.

A very good innings and still going to the end. She was a regular on the People's Vote campaign, recalling that when she worked for Harold Wilson he said anyone who thought Britain's place in the European Community was a black and white issue "was a charlatan or a simpleton. Turning to Boris Johnson"

She was the Speaker on the news when I grew up and I think still in my head what a Speaker should be. But I wonder if that's also because she always had a dose of high camp.

And a pretty extraordinary - and I think probably quite fun - life from Tiller girl to Speaker. Here performing "My Old Man (Said Follow the Van)" in a feather boa
https://twitter.com/garyconnor84/status/1181493387620425734

[Sheilbh]

I know someone who works for them. Its interesting how cobbled together the actual organisation is. Quite amazing they're able to get all these big global players showing up.

I think its clear anyone who believes some group is micro-managing the world has not worked for any organisation of mid-size or above (certainly not at a level of having at least the slightest overview of it, otherwise they'd realise how impossible that is.

Yeah the conspiracy theory is mad.

But I reserve the right to criticise them and Davos in general as a broadly bad thing It's another of those left-right conspiracy switcheroos.

[The Larch]

World Economic Forum

Daily mail commenters are convinced that they are running the show from behind the scenes....

The Davos guys? 

Yeah, I think that kind of groups have become a new target for wackos of all kinds. The new Bilderberg group.

[Sheilbh]

I mean it must be a major part of his job description to schmooze with important people 

Yeah I really don't get it My suspicion is that a journalist got over-excited and it then became a three day story.

Separately it is looking positive for the deal. Steve Baker is not only not resigning but, as an ERG hardliner (now in government), has said the deal is a "really fantastic result". Irish press are reporting that the DUP are preparing to accept the deal - the DUP have dismissed this and said they will study the legal text first. But obviously that's what they would say if they were preparing to accept a deal - I still think anything other than "NEVER SURRENDER" from the DUP is a positive side

[Josquius]

Yeah the conspiracy theory is mad.

But I reserve the right to criticise them and Davos in general as a broadly bad thing It's another of those left-right conspiracy switcheroos.

They don't help themselves by holding it in this posh secluded ski resort every year. Really does lead to a smell of something off. But overall a lot of good stuff does tend to come out of there. Important people need to be talking.

I know someone who works for them. Its interesting how cobbled together the actual organisation is. Quite amazing they're able to get all these big global players showing up.

I think its clear anyone who believes some group is micro-managing the world has not worked for any organisation of mid-size or above (certainly not at a level of having at least the slightest overview of it, otherwise they'd realise how impossible that is.

Yes. Its true.
And incidentally this explains perfectly well why they do such dastardly shit.
There's no Mr Big sat in Nestle HQ plotting to destroy a town for profits... he's shitting on his underling who shit on their underling who shit on their underling until at the bottom you've some sub contractor who figures out they can make a million by draining a reservoir and selling it up the chain.

[Jacob]

I think its clear anyone who believes some group is micro-managing the world has not worked for any organisation of mid-size or above (certainly not at a level of having at least the slightest overview of it, otherwise they'd realise how impossible that is.

Exactly!