Brexit process

[Lord Beria3]

From the lefty new statesman...

opposition parties are at odds over their plan to avert a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. The beef? Whether Jeremy Corbyn leads an emergency government of national unity in the event that Boris Johnson is forced from office.

After a testy summit of rebel alliance leaders broke down without agreement yesterday, Labour and the Liberal Democrats rushed to blame one another. Senior Labour figures accuse Jo Swinson of being irresponsible in refusing to back Corbyn, while Swinson claims to be astonished that they won't countenance another candidate.

That you probably aren't astonished to read that exact sentence for the umpteenth time attests to the fact that this plan is going nowhere. It barely bears repeating at this point, but there is no political incentive for the Liberal Democrats - or, for that matter, the 21 former Tory independents - to make Corbyn prime minister, even for five minutes. And nor is the Labour leadership ever going to concede that those who say Corbyn is unfit for office have a point. The numbers aren't there, and even if they were, the political will wouldn't be.

Yet one of the sharpest ironies about this noisy row is the fact that it has almost certainly been resolved: there is no need for an interim prime minister to stop no-deal at the end of the month, because the actual prime minister will do it for them. That's the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from a lengthy, bilious Downing Street briefing reproduced in full by the Spectator's James Forsyth last night, in which someone widely assumed to be Dominic Cummings predicts the imminent collapse of negotiations with the EU, declares Johnson's deal dead, and makes clear that friendly members of the EU27 will be leant on to oppose an extension.

But what it doesn't say is that the government will ignore the law - as was made clear in court in Edinburgh last week. Far from setting out a failsafe plan to stop an extension happening, it really just lays out how Downing Street will seek to blame a Parliament "as popular as the clap" and "hostile" EU governments in the inevitable event that it is compelled to seek one. "We'll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal," is the conclusion.

So much for do or die. Those almost certainly aren't the words of a Downing Street operation that is on the brink of doing something reckless on 31 October, but one looking to cushion its landing on 1 November. That the oppositions parties are fighting like ferrets in a sack is all the consolation they need that, come that general election, Johnson's failure to fulfil the one pledge he was elected to fulfil will matter less than the failure of Remain voters to consolidate around a single party.

[Lord Beria3]

And our friends at eurointeligence...

Brexit extension as casus belli?

We have wondered at times whether Brexit could at some point turn into a paramilitary conflict - a civil war in the UK or a conflict between the UK and third countries in the EU. This is, of course, a far-fetched scenario, but remember that all wars are preceded by a verbal build-up. The reverse implication does not hold, of course, but we are clearly in that verbal phase now. 

We noted some of the most chillingcomments we have yet heard from Number 10 Downing Street yesterday, as reported by James Forsyth from the Spectator. We believe that the unnamed source is either Dominic Cummings himself, or someone authorised directly by him. The source said that the talks were breaking down because Leo Varadkar and Michel Barnier were betting on a Brexit reversal through a second referendum. The source said the deal offered by Boris Johnson would not be revived. The government would accept its narrow duties under the Benn extension bill, but would seek to frustrate its intent. The aim is to go for an election with a promise to deliver a no-deal Brexit by a certain date. 

And then this - a chilling reference of hostile interference by EU member states in British politics. The square brackets are an indirect quote:

"We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government]. Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us."

The Guardian has corroborated at least one aspect of that story. The talks are in the process of breaking down. The EU has given the UK a point-by-point rebuff of its proposals. The EU rejects the Stormont veto. We argued ourselves that this is the most unreasonable aspect of the proposal. But the EU also rejects the whole principle of a customs border inside Ireland. The flat-out rejection of a dual border will kill the negotiations. We think that a separation of the two borders could have constituted a reasonable starting point. Barnier’s team also argues that the UK government’s proposed fallback to no controls and no border checks would endanger the EU’s single market. Further issues for the EU are the proposed reform of the common transit convention - again with the same argument. The EU is also taking issue with the proposals on state aid, which would give Northern Irish companies potentially a competitive advantage. The UK would also have continued to enjoy access to EU databases even after the DUP vetoed alignment with the single market.

The Guardian writes that David Frost, the UK’s Brexit negotiator, is scheduled to stay in Brussels for further talks until Monday night. But it looks to us that we are entering gridlock.

We think the EU would be making a risky bet on early UK elections, and might be underestimating the sheer appetite in the UK not so much for Brexit itself but for the issue to be concluded. We are clearly now headed into that scenario.

The comments from Downing Street suggest that they still hold out some hope of an October 31 Brexit. But their main scenario seems to be shifting towards an extension followed by an election. This is also why we don’t think that the present legal cases in Scotland are all that relevant to the ultimate outcome. The fate of Brexit will be decided at the ballot box, not in the courts.

Our main scenario remains an early election, and an absolute majorities for the Tories or at least a Brexit-supporting majority in the House of Commons. We have always warned that a no-deal Brexit has a higher likelihood than widely assumed. But we are now ready to call a no-deal Brexit the single most probable outcome.

One possible action for the EU to take is to offer a long extension, say two or three years, which the present parliament might accept if confronted with the alternative of a no-deal Brexit on October 31. A long extension would give time for a second referendum. This is the scenario we fear the most because it would be construed by Brexiters as an outright hostile act. If such a decision were followed by an election, and a pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons resulted, we would expect the UK to declare a unilateral withdrawal from the EU bypassing Article 50. That would be the Iron Curtain version of a no-deal Brexit.

[UndercoverElephant]

From the lefty new statesman...

opposition parties are at odds over their plan to avert a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. The beef? Whether Jeremy Corbyn leads an emergency government of national unity in the event that Boris Johnson is forced from office.

After a testy summit of rebel alliance leaders broke down without agreement yesterday, Labour and the Liberal Democrats rushed to blame one another. Senior Labour figures accuse Jo Swinson of being irresponsible in refusing to back Corbyn, while Swinson claims to be astonished that they won't countenance another candidate.

That you probably aren't astonished to read that exact sentence for the umpteenth time attests to the fact that this plan is going nowhere. It barely bears repeating at this point, but there is no political incentive for the Liberal Democrats - or, for that matter, the 21 former Tory independents - to make Corbyn prime minister, even for five minutes.

This is not quite true. Firstly, the 21 former tories are a mixed bunch, with different motives and incentives. The libdems are the interesting ones, and it is only half-true that there is no political incentive for them to back Corbyn as a temporary PM. It's half-true because Swinson is trying to convince tory remainers to vote Libdem, so wants to ram home her anti-Corbyn credentials. But it is also half false, because if we end up with a no deal brexit that the liberal democrats could have stopped, but didn't, they will be severely punished by their own remainiac supporters, most of whom are considerably less bothered about the prospect of a short-term, powerless Corbyn government than she is.

In other words, if we get that far, Swinson will blink first.

[Little John]

Labour have f***ed up. As per usual.

[UndercoverElephant]

Labour have f***ed up. As per usual.

And I think you've got this very seriously wrong, as per usual.

Did you watch Newsnight? Just had Paul Mason predicting that if we get extension-->election-->tories campaign for a no deal brexit, then Labour might win an overall majority. I think he's right, and I am really struggling to understand why so many people think the tories will romp home. I am guessing they are looking at the polls but feeding them into a very different electoral dynamic to the one I think is going to play out.

There's a nightmare scenario looming for Johnson, where he can't make a pact with the brexit party work (splitting the no deal vote) and tactical voting by remainers delivers lab-tory marginals to labour and libdem-tory marginals to the libdems. If that happens, the tories will struggle to win 200 seats, and we'll end up with a small labour majority or a minority labour government propped up by the SNP. SNP clearly think this is possible (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49951259).

[Little John]

Labour have f***ed up. As per usual.

And I think you've got this very seriously wrong, as per usual.

Did you watch Newsnight? Just had Paul Mason predicting that if we get extension-->election-->tories campaign for a no deal brexit, then Labour might win an overall majority. I think he's right, and I am really struggling to understand why so many people think the tories will romp home. I am guessing they are looking at the polls but feeding them into a very different electoral dynamic to the one I think is going to play out.

There's a nightmare scenario looming for Johnson, where he can't make a pact with the brexit party work (splitting the no deal vote) and tactical voting by remainers delivers lab-tory marginals to labour and libdem-tory marginals to the libdems. If that happens, the tories will struggle to win 200 seats, and we'll end up with a small labour majority or a minority labour government propped up by the SNP. SNP clearly think this is possible (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49951259).

So, you're listening to Paul - establishment shill - Mason now.

That figures.

[UndercoverElephant]

Your idea of "establishment shill" is very weird indeed. Mason wants a Corbyn government. If you've reached the point where you think Corbyn supporters are a proxy part of the establishment, then your thinking has been broken.

[Lord Beria3]

Mason IS an establishment shrill. His foreign policy is super hawkish and I'm convinced he uses lefty and at times weirdly post modernist language to hide the fact that he is an establishment asset.

[UndercoverElephant]

From today's FT:

Tory party faces split over any no-deal election manifesto - Dozens of MPs consider running on own softer Brexit platforms or even standing aside

At least 50 Conservative MPs would revolt against a general election manifesto that pledged to pursue a no-deal Brexit, according to two members of the government.

Scores of Tory MPs oppose the idea and some are considering running on a softer individual Brexit platform or even standing aside as a Conservative candidate.

One minister predicted that “at least 50 colleagues could not back no-deal, including several in the cabinet�. Another said: “So much depends on the language but for me there has to be at least a nod to getting a deal.�

Those MPs who would find a manifesto containing a purely no-deal Brexit policy problematic to support include culture secretary Nicky Morgan, justice secretary Robert Buckland and Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith.

The disquiet in the Tory ranks comes as talks with the EU appear on the verge of collapse. Without a new Brexit deal, Boris Johnson is expected reluctantly to seek a delay to Brexit, precipitating a general election.

The notion that the Tories could run on an exclusively no-deal platform was raised by a Downing Street official who told The Spectator magazine that if Mr Johnson’s efforts to strike a new deal failed, they would have to back the hardest of Brexits in order to win over voters who might otherwise back Nigel Farage’s Brexit party.

“To marginalise the Brexit party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’,� the official said. “We will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave.�

One member of Mr Johnson’s government told the Financial Times: “I would write in my own election address that I will back a deal to leave the EU. I’m pretty sure that dozens more will do the same.�

The MP said it would be “lunacy� to endorse the idea of no-deal as a “desired outcome�, adding: “You would have to be without an understanding of basic British electoral politics to see how that could lose you many votes in a general election once Labour started pointing out all the obvious problems.�

One senior Tory MP said: “There’s simply no way I am standing on a manifesto promoting no-deal. It would be madness. Tons of colleagues feel the same way. I’d have to run on my own manifesto or not stand at all. The idea we can out-Brexit the Brexit party is ludicrous.�

Officials working on election planning believe that if an election was held after another Brexit delay, the party may have no choice but to back no-deal in order to counter the threat of the Brexit party. Strategists believe that Mr Farage’s party would receive a bounce of at least five points if Mr Johnson failed to take the UK out of the EU on October 31.

Mr Farage has said he would stand candidates down at an election only if Mr Johnson explicitly backed a no-deal exit. His party has otherwise pledged to run in all 650 parliamentary constituencies, even if it risks splitting the pro-Brexit vote and hands victory to Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates.

Some Tories, however, do not believe Mr Johnson would agree to an exclusive no-deal manifesto. “Boris wouldn’t go down that route as it would split the party,� said one MP. Another Johnson ally predicted the manifesto would “ultimately look like our 2017 pledge: we’ll back a deal but would be happy to go for no-deal if the EU don’t give way�.

One Tory strategist said Mr Johnson might end up splitting the difference. “They have to include no-deal, but to rule out a deal won’t cut it either with around 50 MPs. Making it a no-deal election versus Corbyn will produce some mad outcomes.�

[PS_RalphW]

Reports that all talks between UK and Eu over Johnson's proposed deal have stopped. Special sitting of parliament on Saturday 19th October.

One way or the other things will have to change.

Uncertainty is hitting Stirling and the economy hard.

[adam2]

Stirling engines should be unaffected
Sterling is being affected.

[PS_RalphW]

My dad designed Stirling engines for a living. Currently the best model ones have to be imported from Germany. Prices are already very high. Looks like Santa Claus will come up empty again this year

[UndercoverElephant]

Stirling engines should be unaffected
Sterling is being affected.

Might sell some more gold....

[Little John]

Your idea of "establishment shill" is very weird indeed. Mason wants a Corbyn government. If you've reached the point where you think Corbyn supporters are a proxy part of the establishment, then your thinking has been broken.

Mason has variously stated:

Russia did it

All working class leavers are Red Tories and racists and it is the "progressive" Left's duty to dump them as an electoral asset

Brexit must be overturned in any way possible and at all costs

Antisemitism in the Labour movement is a thing

You really are a deluded fool or an ideologically possessed lunatic or both

[Little John]

Mason IS an establishment shrill. His foreign policy is super hawkish and I'm convinced he uses lefty and at times weirdly post modernist language to hide the fact that he is an establishment asset.

precisely