What will the UK do wrt Brexit?

Great Debates
1341

The trouble when people cite economists being accurate or inaccurate is that they don’t make one simple prediction, most of the time. The Bank of England for example will normally sketch out several scenarios based on possible responses to events and so on, and so in fact multiple assessments are often presented. But the press tend to seize on the most extreme example, and that’s taken as ‘the’ assessment.

The important thing to note is that, for example, the Bank of England’s repeated multiple scenarios all show negative impacts on the UK. In every scenario, the best possible outcome is still damage to the UK.

1342

I’m not sure I follow.

Even if Northern Ireland wants to Remain, but it looks Leave is going ahead, shouldn’t the DUP nonetheless fight for the best conditions for Northern Ireland in the event of Leave?

:confused:

1343

As opposed to the Leave campaign who, expecting to lose, declared it non-binding up to the point they won, at which point it became The Immutable Will of the People. Farage himself said a 52-48 split wouldn’t constitute a definitive result and that he would want a second referendum, back when he was expecting to be on the “48” side of it. The Leave campaign literally starting whining about losing long before the referendum.

It’s not “scaremongering” when you have substantial justification for it. Which the Remain campaign did, despite Cameron’s cackhanded leadership of the campaign (and seriously, who put him in charge of Remain?) and which has continued to be borne out by events. Actual “scaremongering” is saying things like “The NHS will be overrun by millions of Turks” and “If we stay in the EU, there will be foreign rape gangs roaming the streets of your neighbourhood”.

I’m not intending to potshot him in his (voluntarily self-imposed) absence but nonetheless he has a long history of repeating arguments that have long been debunked, handwaving away evidence supplied, making simplistic and unsupported assertions, ignoring reasonable questions and assigning malign intent to anyone who calls him out on any of the above, all of which are visible in this very thread. You, conversely, appear to argue in good faith (or, if you like, have “superior debating skills”), even if I disagree with most of your points.

In short - it’s not the specific political position that is drawing the fire, it’s the rhetorical approach.

1344

Two more calls from major business organisations for sanity:
No-deal Brexit would be economic lunacy, say UK manufacturers

CBI warns against ‘severe’ disruption from no deal

And from the right-wing Spectator:

The question that no-deal Brexiteers must answer
Any answers to that question from the no-deal Brexiteers here?

1345

Which is total weaksauce, because (and this has always bothered me, watching this from afar) it strikes me that making such a big change should require some kind of supermajority, like 60 percent. They should have required a supermajority to enter the EU, and they should require one to leave.

1346

I agree with that, and not just in the context of Brexit. Any massive changes to the country should require 60% at the very least - and ideally 66.6% - to pass. The Scottish independence referendum could have squeaked over the line by a fraction of a percent, which would have been a bloody stupid way to make such a monumental change to the country.

1347

Of course they should. But that would require them to admit that they had made a mistake in lining up with the Paleotories in England and backing a hard Brexit, and such an admission is beyond them.

1348

But from their point of view, and of their voters, not having an economic border with the rest of the UK is the best condition, indeed it’s an article of faith if that’s the price of no economic border with the Republic.

Though whether their faith might become more flexible with more money from London (maybe relief funds for any additional costs incurred by NI businesses as a result of checks on trade with the mainland, or some such) - I wouldn’t know. A lot would depend on how the parliamentary arithmetic stacks up after the next election.

1349

When it comes to the DUP, “articles of faith” and “things that are best in reality” are not always the same thing.

1350

I’d agree with that as well, I’d include that any future E.U. treaties should be put to a a referendum with a 66.6% vote required to pass them. Such a system should have been in place from the start.

1351

The economic border with the UK will be much less disruptive/harmful to trade than the economic border with the Republic would be. This, presumably, is part of the reason why the backstop is popular in Northern Ireland.

1352

Change UK (a Remain group) has lost 6 out of 11 MPs because of the dire EU Parliament election results:

1353

Change UK were defined entirely by who they weren’t rather than who they were. Such an entity was never going to last in that state. The question is whether they persist and limp on, or go crawling back to their original parties, or just quit politics and become television pundits and columnists for the Independent.

1354

I’ve been thinking how this will all end, and to my surprise realise that there is one reasonably straightforward way through this mess, consistent with all the leading British politicians’ stated and apparent priorities. That is:
1 the new Conservative Prime Minister does go to Brussels to successfully renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. Specifically, the offer is to redraw the backstop so that it applies to Northern Ireland only. This should work for the EU, since it is what they originally wanted, and is better for the EU and member states than the alternatives, which are Britain crashing out with no deal, another aimless extension of the article 50 process, or worst of all a cynical revocation of the article 50 notice in bad faith. (Note that anything other than an enthusiastic revocation based on a decisive second referendum is much worse for the EU than the UK - a bad faith revocation is really difficult for the EU to handle.)

2 clearly this antagonises the DUP, but that doesn’t matter. There will be some backbench Tories who are unhappy, but few will be so unhappy that they oppose Brexit because of it. Conversely, it should bring the ERG on board, and puts Labour into a corner. What might Labour do?

3a one way or another sufficient Labour MPs vote for the revised withdrawal agreement so that it passes. The new Conservative Prime Minister is the hero of the leavers, and can call a general election early in the transitional period (which Parliament can hardly refuse) with a good chance of winning a working majority (since none of the bad impacts of Brexit will have happened then, indeed there will probably be some good news simply because of the end of the uncertainty).

3b Labour opposes the revised withdrawal agreement, and we crash out with no deal on 31 October. It’s a mess, and Labour “is to blame for not supporting the withdrawal agreement”. The new Prime Minister is the hero of the leavers, and can call an emergency general election (which Parliament can hardly refuse) with a good chance of winning a working majority “to repair the damage which Labour has done”.

3c Labour opposes the revised withdrawal agreement, and forces a referendum and extension through Parliament (which the EU would probably reluctantly support). The new Prime Minister is the hero of the leavers, and can campaign on his revised withdrawal agreement “which delivers the will of the people”, with a good chance of winning. Also, as the hero of the leavers, he calls for an emergency general election, campaigning to stop the referendum and to Brexit in line with the new withdrawal agreement, with a good chance of winning a working majority “to defeat the enemies of the people”.

3d Labour opposes the revised withdrawal agreement and somehow Parliament forces through the revocation of the article 50 notice. Doesn’t seem likely, but again the new PM is the hero of the leavers and can probably win the inevitable general election. Then chaos ensues when Britain leaves the EU anyway.

All of these scenarios see the Conservatives winning the next general election. Most likely with the proposed revised withdrawal agreement, which gives them breathing space to come up with sensible policies during the transitional period having won a subsequent general election. Which could cover anything from an eventual hard Brexit, to not leaving at all, with plenty of scope for their new leader to claim all the credit. Not getting the revised withdrawal agreement through would be worse for the country, but in all scenarios the blame could be pinned on Labour.

Clearly, this relies on the new Conservative leader taking this approach, but it does seem quite feasible for one of the “sensible” idiots (say Johnson, Hunt or Gove) rather than one of the psycho idiots (Raab) or plain stupid idiots (Leadsom).

It also relies on the nation being content to weaken the union with Northern Ireland. Despite some bluster so far, the one thing I am sure about is that maintaining strong links between the constituent parts of the UK is low down on leavers’ list of priorities.

Given Corbyn’s current positioning, there isn’t much Labour could do to successfully oppose this. Absent a leadership challenge as soon as possible, and preferably yesterday, with a new Labour leader campaigning vigorously for a second referendum and remain, then exiting on such a revised withdrawal agreement seems inevitable.

Personally, I would be content with such an outcome. I think if Britain enters a transitional period which broadly matches our current membership of the EU, then we will never actually fully leave.

1355

It may be straightforward, but it’s also fanciful:

However,

What do you plan to do about that?

1356

It does matter if it antagonises the DUP. It’s only the DUP that’s propping up the Tory government. If the DUP were to withdraw their support, the government would not be able to win a vote of no-confidence, and there would have to be a general election - which the Tories are trying to avoid at all costs.

So that’s not going to happen.

1357

As I carefully explained in the rest of the paragraph, the proposal is in my opinion an offer the EU can’t refuse. Since all the alternatives are worse for the EU. Furthermore, refusing to let a country leave the EU unless it commits to following all the EU’s rules and regulations forever would actually justify the leavers’ previously unjustifiable assertion that the EU is a dictatorship. That’s not a viable position for the EU to adopt.

Seriously, the EU cannot and will not reject sensible workable proposals which are in its own best interests and which can easily be implemented. The so-called refusal to renegotiate only makes any sense at all in the context of the British government only making pointless impractical offers. Which so far it has done, but my point is that it need not continue to do so.

1358

You missed the clever bit. If the new Conservative leader offers to Brexit on the current withdrawal agreement but with the backstop reduced to NI only, then that severely reduces scope for Labour to call a no confidence motion. Because the backstop works for everyone if it is limited to NI.

For a start, several northern Labour MPs would see this as an easy way out of their dilemma, representing leaver constituencies.

Second, it calls Corbyn’s bluff, since he is a leaver too. Put it another way, something is going to happen, and it isn’t Corbyn successfully leading a campaign for the UK to remain in the EU, nor is it Corbyn negotiating a better withdrawal agreement with the EU. (I’m sure Elvis1ives will support me on that! :)) So, one way or another, the outcome is going to be the UK leaving the EU, I am merely setting out a way for that to happen without no deal, which no-one wants.

Third, it changes the narrative around a general election, to one that the Conservatives easily win. The process would be, Boris (for it is he) makes the proposal I suggest. Labour says, no, we aren’t leaving on that basis, let’s have a general election. Boris says fine, and agrees with Nigel that in the constituencies currently held by Labour, half will be fought by a Brexit Party candidate and half by a Conservative, provided no Brexit Party candidates oppose sitting Conservative MPs. The Conservative / Brexit alliance wins the election and either exits with the deal I suggest or, having done all that they reasonably could to avoid it, with no deal.

The Conservatives currently fear a general election, because they will be demolished as a punishment for betraying the will of the people. If they pivot to genuinely trying to leave the EU on the best terms possible, then they win the next general election easily, either under their own brand or in association with the Faragists.

1359

The withdrawal agreement won’t be open to renegotiation. There might be room to manoeuvre on the accompanying “political declaration” which in effect outlines the agenda for the next phase of negotiations about the future trading relationship, and includes the Irish backstop. But not much and all dependent on the next PM coming up with a specific proposal that can be shown to be acceptable to parliament - and if it’s opposed by the DUP, it won’t be, even if it’s backed by the entire Tory parliamentary party.

And let’s not forget the opposition to being still subject to EU rules in the transition period (e.g. one B A de P Johnson, at least this week).

1360

Let me try again a different way, in a short punchy statement suitable for modern social media.

It seems to me that given where we are today, once the Conservatives are led by a committed leaver, then it is inevitable that Brexit will happen relatively quickly. The only question is if it will be under a formal withdrawal agreement or without one. Exiting without an agreement seems unthinkable, and the only withdrawal agreement available is deeply unsatisfactory to people of all shades of opinion. Does this mean that Brexit won’t happen? No, because there is a relatively minor tweak to the withdrawal agreement which would satisfy the EU, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, British voters and most Northern Irish voters. That provides a viable way through the morass.

Other outcomes are possible, but none seem likely. No better withdrawal agreement is possible, no deal is deeply unattractive, there is no remainer party which can win a general election if held soon, there is no mechanism to delay exit without a persuasive reason, there is no persuasive reason which is going to emerge before 31 October this year. The Conservative Party has the initiative, and it would be willing to exit on no deal, particularly if it can credibly pin the blame on Labour.

Once you have eliminated all the almost impossible outcomes, the merely unlikely outcome must follow.