Brexit process

[Lord Beria3]

LJ - proud of you. You are the better man. See you back on the forum...

Eurointeligence latest...

How would the EU react to Do-or-Die?

We think it is significant that Boris Johnson has given a do-or-die pledge on the October 31 Brexit date. The reaction from Brussels is equally significant: nobody believes him.

Johnson’s pledge raises the chances of early elections, given the Commons majorities.

For us it raises a far more interesting, yet unanswered question about Brexit: what would the leaders of the EU and the UK do if they were really confronted by such a threat? Not what they say they would do, but what they would actually do.

EU leaders keep on repeating that they don’t want to re-open the withdrawal agreement. Of course. We see no reason why they should shift position in the current situation. But they were at no point confronted by the reality of a no-deal Brexit. So, how do we know? Olly Robbins, Theresa May’s Brexit negotiator, told his opposites that no-deal wouldn't happen. May herself concluded that she could not take the responsibility for such a momentous decision. So the EU had nothing to lose by sticking to the current deal. 

The reasons why the EU is a relatively successful negotiator is a devolved negotiating process with pre-agreed mandates and an institutionally in-built complacency. The EU is good at negotiating for the same reason robots are better at reading medical images than qualified doctors.

Unless the facts change on Brexit, the EU’s robot-like negotiating positions will remain fixed. If a new UK prime minister were to approach Brussels in the same spirit as May, there would be warm words, but no change.

But what would the EU do if confronted by a PM who is genuinely ready to go for a no-deal Brexit? Would they sleepwalk into it, safe in the knowledge that the economic impact would be worse on the UK than on the EU?

One of the few journalists who has been gaming this scenario in detail is Peter Foster of the Daily Telegraph. Whatever one may think of the newspaper, Foster has been one of the more reliable Brussels correspondents of the UK press corps, and certainly no unicorn man. What he says about the political no-deal dynamics is quite interesting. 

He started off with an observation that also sits firmly on our minds: would Dublin really not blink? We are assured by people with a much better understanding of Irish politics that Leo Vardkar cannot conceivably compromise on the Irish border. For him, it is politically easier to have a super-hard border imposed on him by the UK than to agree a compromise. We believe that this assertion correctly reflects the views in Dublin. But then again, it has not been tested, only stated. Would the politics not change if people were confronted with the economic reality of a harder border, when people lose jobs and income? Would they still want their prime minister to be brave and principled in that situation? The answer may well be yes, but should we really take this for granted?

Foster writes that the EU expects a no-deal UK government to put the heat on Dublin, reminding them that the economic impact on Ireland would be much more severe than on the UK itself - a 4% immediate loss of GDP in the first year, and a hard border across the island. And, while the EU sides with Ireland against the UK, it also has to preserve its own interest vis-a-vis Ireland. As Foster writes, the EU26 have asked Ireland for its contingency plans in case of a no-deal Brexit. 

Foster then asks: what if a Johnson government were to demonstrate that it could deliver a majority for a withdrawal agreement with a time-limited backstop? Would the EU and Ireland really choose pain today over pain tomorrow? The answer again may well be yes - but it would be out of character. 

Foster concludes that Irish politics might favour the latter option. We also remain open to that outcome. But our underlying point remains that it is one thing to state a course of action under a hypothetical scenario in which you don’t really believe in, and it is another thing to act this way when that scenario actually occurs. 

We are well aware that we may be over-gaming this. EU leaders are nowhere near this point. They deal with situations as they arise. The entire political apparatus in Brussels is currently expanding its entire strategic energy on settling the relatively unimportant questions of who is going to be the next president of the European Commission or the European Council. The presidency of the ECB and Brexit are far more important for the future of Europe where solutions will emerge as accidental outcomes of other choices

. 

[UndercoverElephant]

LJ - proud of you. You are the better man.  

...says the paid up tory member.

Personally, I choose play the ball, not the man.

[Lord Beria3]

Nothing wrong with that. I don't judge labour party members. One of my best friends is a paid up labour supporter.

It's called respect.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's called respect.

Yes, and I don't treat you disrespectfully because you are a tory member, and I don't expect to be treated disrespectfully because I am opposed to the tories politically, or consider that to be a priority over brexit.

[Lord Beria3]

Fair enough.

I respect but disagree with your priorities when it comes to Brexit.

Back on the substance what's your thoughts on the latest eurointeligence post today?

[UndercoverElephant]

Fair enough.

I respect but disagree with your priorities when it comes to Brexit.

Back on the substance what's your thoughts on the latest eurointeligence post today?

I agree with a lot of it. I suspect the EU might well be willing to budge if confronted with the reality of a no deal brexit, but I don't think that's going to happen, because I think the EU is banking on tory MPs stopping it. I think those tory MPs will blink before the EU does.

[Potemkin Villager]

The oracle https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ne-against speaks!

"Boris Johnson has said the chances of a no-deal Brexit are a “million-to-one against�, despite promising to leave on 31 October whether or not he has managed to strike a new agreement with the European Union."

So no worries then.

[kenneal - lagger]

I had a very good day in London yesterday at the Climate Change Lobby of Parliament with a group from Newbury. We had an interesting talk with our MP, Richard Benyon, for about half an hour before he had to return for a Select committee meeting.

When asked about the government applying 20% VAT on solar panels he, a Remain voter, pointed out that it was the EU which had forced this course of action on the government by threatening fines of millions of euros if VAT wasn't imposed at that rate.

He also pointed out that UK animal welfare and environmental regulations were, in most cases, more stringent than those of the EU. In many other cases the government had been unable to act because of EU legislation.

So much for the Remainer lie of the environment being in danger if we leave the EU.

[Lord Beria3]

Eurointeligence latest...

Why it is an illusion to think that the Commons could stop a no-deal Brexit

In today’s briefing, we are looking at procedures and timetables, and why they conspire against a further Brexit extension. Our overall conclusion is that it is not possible for the UK parliament to frustrate Brexit by October.

That said...

We should remember how this kind of analysis applied last time. It got short-circuited because Theresa May herself sought the Brexit extension. She could have defeated or ignored the Cooper amendment if she had wanted to. She chose not to.

The mechanics of the fixed-term parliaments act (FTPA), the legislation that would apply in this specific case, suggests to us that the time window for an election ahead of the end-October deadline is too tight. Labour has already decided not to launch an immediate vote of no-confidence against Johnson - as presumptive prime minister - when he takes office on July 23 or 24. The House of Common goes on holidays on July 25 and does not return until September 5. At that point, it is already too late, according to an analysis by Catherine Haddon from the Institute of Government.

She worked out the timetable under the FTPA backwards, but didn’t take into account of the parliamentary recess times. Here it is the full version, with that important omission repaired:

Oct 31st is a Thursday. Last possible date for a new government to be installed before the deadline is Friday Oct 25; thus elections need to be hold by Thursday, Oct 24;start of election campaign Sept 19 as FTPA requires 25 days for the campaign;2 day washup time, as Haddon calls it, to get things ready. She writes this the shortest conceivable time; Sept 16 - second vote of no-confidence - after a 14-day period following the first vote;Sept 2 - first vote of confidence;But... Sept 3 - end of recess.

So, if Jeremy Corbyn were to launch and win a vote of no-confidence in the first week after the return, he would still end up outside the Oct 31st deadline. And this on the shortest of all possible timetables. This is in itself unrealistic because, as Haddon notes, the prime minister is in control of three important nodes in that process:

when the first vote of confidence is voted on - there is no obligation for the PM to grant that vote immediately;whether to resign and force elections immediately, or wait out the 14-day period for a second vote;and the actual election date - the 25 days in the FTPA are a minimum.

The vote of no-confidence would only trigger a Brexit extension if the prime minister were to agree to ask for it. UK commentators appear to take this for granted. We do not. If Parliament gets dissolved on September 16 or 17, it does not have the opportunity even to put forward a motion asking the government to seek an extension. In other words, Johnson could deliver the no-deal Brexit 6 days before the elections if he wanted to.

Does parliament have other options? Cooper-style motions are not going to swing it. We see only three theoretical possibilities:

unilateral revocation;passage of second-referendum legislation coupled with a formal request for the government to seek extension of the October deadline;an FTPA process leading to the appointment of a new government without elections. 

We see no chance of unilateral revocation. We think the Labour Party will end up supporting a second referendum, but with at least 30 MPs opposed. One of the reasons we think MPs will be cautious is that a second referendum is very likely to be preceded by elections. MPs would thus have to defend their decision to support a second referendum in a general election first.

What about a short-lived technical government set up with the sole purpose of seeking an extension to Art 50, and to agree immediate elections afterwards? We see no reason why Corbyn would support that option when he can have elections right away. Such a government of national unity might decide to hang on. The left would clearly see a technical government as an centrist attempt at a reverse takeover of the Labour leadership.

Agree with this analysis. Parliaments options are narrowing.

The unlikely chance of Hunt winning increased with his blunders 1) calling leave voters little englanders and 2) comparing IRA terrorists to British soldiers. Both will go down badly in Toryland.

I'm sticking with my vote for Boris.

His do or die pledge seems to suggest a hard Brexit chances are rising but it is still considered unthinkable to the Westminster elite.

[RevdTess]

I agree with the analysis that there's not enough time to trigger an election and get a new parliament in place before October unless Boris himself wants to do that, but even with Boris in charge I'm not convinced the Tories would come out of such an election with more seats.

The Eurointelligence briefing asserts that a revocation of A50 has 'no chance' though it doesn't say why, so I'm assuming that must just be because there aren't the votes for it.

The uncertainty for me is around what might happen if Boris does take the country out on no-deal terms against the will of parliament, by running down the clock, preventing votes, proroguing parliament etc. At the moment he's claiming this won't happen because of his boundless confidence that he can make a new deal by the deadline. I'll just say I'll be impressed and amazed if he can achieve that. It seems as delusional at this stage as the assumption that parliament can definitely block no-deal.

I've moved on to wondering what the outcome of the next GE might be after the Boris-led no-deal exit which I now expect. Will the BXP dissolve or continue? Will UKIP recover? Tory grassroots will be delighted, but will there be a massive revenge vote by the 48% plus soft Brexiteers? Voting in Labour at that point might result in a posthoc deal to reenter the CU. What would be the consequences for the Scottish Indyref2?

A lot depends on how successful or disastrous a no-deal Brexit turns out to be, and who gets the credit or blame for that. Boris might even go for an election immediately after a no-deal exit, if he believes that the country will be cheering him like Churchill. Even if he loses, he forces Corbyn to deal with the no-deal fallout and can ever thereafter blame him if it's a disaster.

I just wish I was watching this from a safe distance.

[Lord Beria3]

Thanks.

Delighted to hear you agree with me that a hard Brexit is your base case.

Eurointelligence have written before that they think that a Tory government would wait a year for the economy to settle and recover before going for a general election.

A hard Brexit is also likely to trigger a radical change in our political economy with billions spent on infrastructure spending.

Ambrose in the Telegraph has written about that recently.

See - https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/201 ... ve-easing/

So, a managed no-deal, which even Berenerg Bank (a pro-EU German investment bank) now think will be managed and avoid major disruption, massive fiscal spending by the government along the lines of Ambrose will be a radical departure for the country.

Exciting times for those of us who want change rather than clinging to a failing status quo.

[UndercoverElephant]

Eurointeligence latest..

Not their best. A week or two short of time won't stop an election from stopping brexit. In that sort of situation the EU would probably agree to a longer extension anyway, for the sole purpose of holding the election and installing a new government.

Where the political will exists, a way will be found.

[UndercoverElephant]

I've moved on to wondering what the outcome of the next GE might be after the Boris-led no-deal exit which I now expect. Will the BXP dissolve or continue? Will UKIP recover? Tory grassroots will be delighted, but will there be a massive revenge vote by the 48% plus soft Brexiteers? Voting in Labour at that point might result in a posthoc deal to reenter the CU. What would be the consequences for the Scottish Indyref2?

Neither UKIP nor the BXP will continue to exist in an electorally significant way if we leave with no deal.

I can see no possible timeline where the tories do not lose the next general election. What sort of government takes over and what they do is a massive unknown though.

[RevdTess]

Exciting times for those of us who want change rather than clinging to a failing status quo.

You won't be surprised to learn that I don't find it exciting. I find it a white-knuckle ride with untrustworthy semi-competent demagogues at the controls who have what appears to be blind faith that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train.

Where I agree with you is that the status quo is failing. I would of course prefer a radical green communal rethinking of society rather than the radical free market corporatocracy which appears to be the Boris fantasy. Once we're no longer tied to the neoliberal agenda, our political future has everything to play for.

I think the most important battle is at the cultural level, not the economic. I'm sick of economy-driven social engineering, trying to enforce behaviour through finance. There needs to be a much bigger conversation about what sort of people we want to be, rather than one group trying to enforce their social vision on everyone else.

[RevdTess]

Neither UKIP nor the BXP will continue to exist in an electorally significant way if we leave with no deal.

I can imagine one or both of them sticking around to try to 'win the peace' so to speak, and keep the Tories 'honest'. UKIP also has an agenda beyond Brexit - they want to oppose multiculturalism - so I doubt they'll feel their work is done.

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the Tories winning the next election. They've got another 2.5 years to rebalance the economy after a no-deal Brexit. If they manage it, I expect they'll win again. They're notoriously good at winning elections they've no right to, especially when Labour can't decide who they are any more. Of course if the economy totally tanks, it'll be "I told you so" time en masse, and the Tories will be gone for a generation.