Tuesday, 25 April 2017

The "Oh not another bloody election" election - day 7

The big issue left over from Sunday was "Corbyn as a threat to national security".  All the media picked up on Andrew Marr's questions and Corbyn's considered answers on drones and nuclear weapons, and the Tories were more than happy to pitch in.  Awkwardly, so were Labour, who assured the world the party is pro-Trident within two hours of the Marr show (better than normal response time).

And Monday's spokespeople were Corbyn's election coordiator Andrew Gwynne and shadow defence secretary Nia Griffiths.  Both reinforced the fact that renewing Trident is party policy and would be in the manifesto.

At least Gwynne opposed first use, in contrast to Michael Fallon who told Today (and other outlets) that we reserve that option.  "In the most extreme circumstances you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.”  That shocked me.  I can't have been keeping up.

Trident is a lost cause for Corbyn, given public opinion, but his reasoning on a putative drone attack to take out Daesh's al-Baghdadi might be more promising.  Fallon claimed "Yesterday we had the staggering performance of somebody who wants to be prime minister saying he wouldn’t necessarily authorise strikes against terrorists."  Sorry mate, but wanting to see the evidence, challenging it, pursuing the question of "collateral damage" is exactly what I'd expect of a prime minister.



The Greens were more united on Trident.  Co-leader Jonathan Bartley told us

"Voters are being offered a choice between Tory first strike fanaticism and Labour’s HMS Pointless. What could be more immoral than considering a first use of nuclear weapons, knowing full well that it would lead to the death of countless civilians? And what could be more illogical that pledging to renew a multibillion pound nuclear weapons system that will never be used? With people struggling to get by in Britain it’s inexcusable to be ploughing people’s money into this cold war relic."



Yougov brought out a Wales-only survey which caused a few shock waves.


The "coalition of chaos" theme is doing well for the Tories.  All but the Greens are distancing themselves from any thought of working together.  There might be a handful of local arrangements, unofficial and even unacknowledged (and possibly led only by the Greens), but that's about it.  Corbyn proposed that the real progressive alliance is Labour with the unions (and he's reported to have gone down better with the Scottish TUC than he did at the Scottish Labour conference).

In other coalition news, the Communist party of Britain has come out for Labour, much to Tory delight, and the SNP has challenged Labour to foreswear coalitions with Tories in Scottish councils.


Lots of people wondered where May was.

But the Times's Sam Coates had the answer.


Defence secretary Michael Fallon, as well as laying into Corbyn on national security, had to respond to accusations that the Tories have stolen Ed Miliband's energy price freeze policy which they labelled Marxist and worse in 2015.  He had enough to say, but it didn't impress Miliband.

Andrea Leadsom, the Defra secretary, told the Commons that plans for dealing with air pollution would be withheld until after the election, despite Monday being the court-imposed deadline for publication.  She denied that government is "running scared of diesel drivers".  Yet somehow the niceties of purdah don't seem to apply to Philip Hammond's fund for small businesses to cushion increases in business rates.  It will be rolled out to support Tory efforts in the local votes next week as well as the general election.

Everybody's favourite ex-MP Esther McVey might reappear as member for Tatton.  She's reported to be on a shortlist of three, which is the process mandated by Central Office for all the seats which currently don't have a candidate.

And the first Tory leaflet of the season has appeared, hammering the leadership angle




UKIP held an integration event (yes, I know) which I found difficult.  Several of the headline subjects - sharia law, FGM, for example - are things that do need attention, but this was UKIP trying to deal with them.  Luckily the Secret Barrister has taken much of the "Integration Agenda" apart so I'll just quote the conclusion:

"No-one wants to suggest that UKIP are a bunch of hog-brained, village ninnies who haven’t even consulted Google before firing off a range of mind-spasmingly senseless policies designed to prey on the very worst racial prejudices of their core voters. But an Integration Agenda that proposes intimately examining the genitals of children from minority groups, dragging such children through courts as witnesses where there is no prospect of conviction and locking up people for longer on the basis of their race, does not assist their cause."

In other UKIP news, Arron Banks finally visited his target constituency and discovered that Clacton kippers don't like carpetbaggers.  So he's withdrawn his kind offer to become the area's MP and backed the candidate they were actually thinking of selecting.  And Paul Nuttall still hasn't decided whether he dares to stand again, telling reporters (when he finally emerged from the dark, panelled room he'd hidden in) to wait for an NEC meeting at the end of the week.



LibDem Lynne Featherstone, who did most of the legwork on FGM in particular during the coalition wasn't impressed by UKIP's integration agenda either.

"Ukip’s approach is horrifically heavy-handed and will alienate the very communities we are trying to reach out to. We should be training our teachers and other providers such as community experts to identify those at risk and teaching children themselves that FGM is wrong and to come forward if they fear for themselves or a friend.

 "In coalition, we put a statutory duty on frontline workers to report concerns of FGM - we need them to have the confidence to do so, and this means better training. Research shows that school teachers are still too scared to talk about FGM, honour-based violence and forced marriage, let alone report it. This is where we should concentrate our efforts not forcing girls to undergo invasive medical examinations.

 "Ukip seem to try and out-do Le Pen with right-wing policies that are insensitive and frankly outrageous."

Over the weekend Paul Nuttall flagged Kate Hoey as one of the Brexiter MPs UKIP might decide not to challenge, but Tim Farron launched the LibDems' attack (bold, since Hoey has a 10,000 majority, but worth a shot in a constituency which recorded one of the highest Remain votes last June).
Oh, and it was announced that LibDem membership topped 100,000 on Monday.




Nicola Stugeon also addressed the Scottish TUC


May might indeed want to distract attention from the cases (though of course it's not inevitable that prosecutions will be recommended) but the CPS deadlines for decision on the various cases are
late May and early June".


Last thing: on Newsnight, Peter Mandelson was asked what Labour's position on brexit is.  His response?  "Search me." Describing himself as a proud "saboteur", Mandelson outlined his group Open Britain's attack list of 20 seats where they hope to spoil the chances of Brexiters getting elected.  What difference might 20 seats make? We'll see. For some reason, though his antipathy to Corbyn was open, he restrained himself from scuppering anybody's career by fingering them as a future leader.

For some reason I was reminded of John Prescott's crab called Peter.



at

Saturday, 22 April 2017

The "I'll do the policy if you don't mind Philip" election - day 4


In case anybody had forgotten already, and in the face of misguided fools trying to run a proper election campaign, Theresa May issued this call for the "strong and stable leadership the United Kingdom needs to see us through Brexit and beyond".  It's all about Brexit and ME, she says.  And did I mention strong and stable leadership?



During a visit to a factory in her own seat of Maidenhead (where the workers were warned not to speak to the press), May actually seemed to say something definite about policy.  The commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on international aid was to be retained, though there was the usual caveat about making sure it was spent well (as if everybody since Clare Short hadn't come up with the brilliant new idea of checking where the money goes).  She avoided any commitment to maintain the triple lock on (parts of) the state pension (for some people).

Later in the day, at a meeting a long way from the dirty campaign, Philip Hammond observed that he wanted to be able to work flexibily, so maybe following George Osborne (remember him?) in forbidding yourself to raise the three taxes which bring in two thirds of government income would be a bad idea.  This led Christopher Hope of the Telegraph, reading between the lines only a little, to observe...





It must say something that Theresa May’s press secretary Lizzie Loudon, has left her job after just nine months in post, hard on the heels of communications chief Katie Perrior.





Friday was supposed to be Tim Farron's turn to shine, but he chose to launch his campaign in a Manchester park, not necessarily the biggest draw.  Here he is, exhibiting admirable focus.


He said (with a complement of verbs which would leave Tony Blair's head reeling),

There is no doubt whatsoever that Theresa May called this election not for all the bogus reasons she claimed about needing a mandate for Brexit. Sadly the Labour party gave her a mandate for Brexit as they pushed us off a cliff-edge voting for article 50 without a single condition attached.

She’s got all she needs if she wants to pursue Brexit, I’m afraid. She looked across the despatch box and thought ‘I cannot resist the temptation of taking on Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party - the most ineffective opposition in inter-planetary history’.

Most media coverage of this last remark neglected to mention Farron's nod to some Dr Who fans who were sharing park space with the event.  But then at least as much attention went to a surprise rival candidacy for the Lib Dem leader's Westmorland and Lonsdale seat.






The day's sacrificial shadow minister was Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) "explaining" Labour's education proposals.  He had a script to describe the problems of the Tory education world - pretty good, apart from some questionable figures for children in large class sizes - but he just would not stop reciting it, no matter what question he was asked.  Eventually it fell to the "wait for the manifesto" line, but not until Twitter - supporters and otherwise - had grown lively with exasperation.

Several people observed "If this is the best that Labour can offer..." and that's part of the problem.  Corbyn may indeed not be able to call on a large part of his party at all, or may have chosen to use only those who will serve in his shadow cabinet, but either way it highlights Labour's divisions.  Mr Kane, and Jack Dromey and Dawn Butler from the day before, otherwise might not be from the first eleven.

Then I remembered that Ed Miliband would have had Lucy Powell on to cover education, who can be good on policy but wasn't at all convincing on the niggly questions about why the party is starting from a low base in the polls, etc, etc.  Let's see whether their preparation improves when they finally get a manifesto to promote.

Jeremy Corbyn himself was touring target Tory seats across the M4 corridor.  The one thing he's shown himself to love, and actually to be rather good at, is campaigning.  If he can move effectively from the easier environment of his own leadership election to the real nationwide stage, he might surprise us yet.  A large part of the parliamentary resource apparently being interested only in getting itself re-elected will be a serious burden to carry though.

It's worth observing that the Corbyn manner works well in many interpersonal settings when journalists might still be hovering, but at a distance.  Contrast his manner when going on a bear hunt with May's in a slightly more formal schol experience.







One sparkling example of Labour's honesty was their attempt to crowdsource some new candidates, the "I have an email from Margaret of South Shields" school of involvement.


Not to be outdone, the Tories are inviting ideas for the manifesto, though the call only extends to May's own parliamentary cohort.  Perhaps a "letter from Jacob in Somerset".



That old shrinking violet Farage came out again to explain why he's not planning to fail for the eighth time to become an MP.  He told us it was more important for him to remain an MEP in Brussels because there he had “a front seat where it matters most [for the Brexit talks]” and he could use his profile “to put real pressure on MEPs to vote for a sensible deal”.  This led several people to scratch their heads.




And (ex-?)UKIP confrère Arron Banks seems to have thought better of his own withdrawal from the fray.

It's urgent, so his people will be in Clacton, er... sometime next week.




Endnotes



When #tomorrowspaperstoday started to come out, the Times headline caused a bit of a stir.


For the real geeks among us this spreadsheet of which incumbent members are standing again or not will have a shortlived appeal.



at

Friday, 21 April 2017

Corbyn's "I'll give you Brexit and stand up against everything else" election - day 3


Thursday began with my latest disappearance from the Twitter timeline for the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.  It doesn't stop the ranting, but it reduces the audience.



We heard from the real A-team!  Was Nigel Farage going to try for the eighth time to become an MP, to add to his may other little projects - raking in money, influence and dodgy friends in the EU parliament, working with various broadcasters and the well-appointed depths of US right wing politics?  He asked for two days but had decided not to bother by the teatime news deadlines.

Since it still seems that MEPs will get a more "meaningful" vote on the separation deal than MPs in the Commons, that's where the action is.  As a party group leader in the EU Parliament Farage will also get periodic updates on the progress of negotiations.  I'm hoping to see less twisted reports back than his will be, and I'll keep an eye on Michel Barnier's website.  I seem to have mislaid the link to the site where the UK government will keep the country up to date.

Linked to this was Douglas Carswell's decision later on not to stand again for Clacton, and to support the Conservatives there (echoes of Mark Reckless in Cardiff Bay, sitting next to the Tories as yet another of UKIP's involuntary cast-offs).  And that meant Arron Banks lost his own motivation to stand in Clacton and he took his money bags home to look for other victims.  Pity.  It would have been great fun watching Banks and Carswell taking chunks out of each other while the Tory romped home.

What seemed like hundreds of tweets sailed past, complaining that Farage and UKIP were getting any exposure at all, so I wrote one of my occasional arguments that we've taken the EU parliament so unseriously that the kippers have ended up the dominant UK party in Brussels and Strasbourg.



The big event of the day was to be Jeremy Corbyn's campaign launch, so we heard from... Emily Thornberry, who really didn't impress.  She told us to expect "Jeremy" to be true to his beliefs (whether or not they had anything to do with Labour policy, presumably).

When Corbyn spoke. he was impressive, rather old fashioned but impassioned, pledging to fight the establishment in terms which prompted comparison with the Trump approach (Labour hates this).

"It is the establishment that complains I don’t play the rules," he told us, "by which they mean their rules. We can’t win, they say, because we don’t play their game.

"We don’t fit in their cosy club. We're not obsessed with the tittle-tattle of Westminster or Brussels. We don’t accept that it is natural for Britain to be governed by a ruling elite, the City and the tax-dodgers, and we don’t accept that the British people just have to take what they’re given, that they don’t deserve better.

"And in a sense, the establishment and their followers in the media are quite right. I don’t play by their rules. And if a Labour Government is elected on 8 June, then we won’t play by their rules either."

Corbyn spoke well, better than I can remember him managing at PMQs, and answered questions with self-deprecatory humour.  When it finished I thought we might actually have a fight on our hands.  Then Jack Dromey came out to take the launch further at lunch time, and Dawn Butler appeared to do the same at tea time, and they both crashed and burned.  Dromey in particular is experienced enough to have a general line prepared and to close demands for detail down quickly with a "Wait for the manifesto".

One thing Corbyn avoided as far as possible was Brexit, which of course is what Theresa May thinks is the whole point of this election (apart from Theresa May herself, and her strong leadship that is).  In response to a question about a "second" referendum on the final Brexit deal he didn't find an answer.  The Tories jumped in to slate him for failing to reject the idea and therefore being in favour of it.

A couple of hours later Labour told us there would be no such vote (but see the bottom of this post).


We now had two pro-Brexit parties, each with many members who would rebel against that position.  Was that sustainable?  Could anything interesting spring from that conflict before the vote itself?  Whatever happened to the position agreed at last September's Labour conference?



Wednesday evening had seen May make a campaigning visit to a "northern town".  She didn't take questions, which meant that Corbyn had the press on his side (much more than expected?) in the morning just by talking to them.




She chose Enfield for a court visit on Thursday and moved on to East Anglia, and this time she played the Trump card by dodging most of the press.




The mark of Crosby is on her campaign from the start - control the message, keep the number of messages to a minimum, control access, be ruthless.  Oh this is going to be fun.  Isn't it?



May also took a bit of time off on Thursday morning to receive the new president of the EU parliament, one Antonio Tajani, and he did a few interviews afterwards.  Channel 4 News asked him about the moving of two EU agencies out of London which was a medium-sized thing yesterday.  His message was as expected: EU agencies have to be in an EU country, and the matter is not part of the Article 50 (or any other) negotiations.  I wonder whether David Davis has admitted that to himself yet. 

Tajani also told us that Article 50 is reversible, and that we'd be welcomed back with open arms if voters changed their minds about Brexit on 8 June.  There's no turning back, according to May, and Corbyn doesn't propose a second referendum, so it's all in our hands.

at

Thursday, 20 April 2017

Farridge? Not again! (and other stories)

Let's get this out of the way: Nigel Farage and UKIP get more media coverage than they merit.  One BBC Question Time in four is unjustified on any scale I can think of, but Farage is an evil PR genius who has clearly mesmerised the journalists, editors and producers of the UK.

And yet, and yet... many people seem to think they should be ignored completely.  After all "they have no MPs" or, until recently, "they have only one MP, and it's bloody Carswell".  Also they seem to lose councillors, Welsh assembly members, leaders... at a rate which would seriously embarrass other parties.

Consider some reasons why UKIP should be covered.
  • In 2015 they attracted one vote in eight (but our electoral system gave them just one MP).  That level of support has held up pretty well since then despite the loss of Farage and a pantomime of leaders, "altercations" and comically unchecked blogs.
  • In 2014 more people voted for them than for anybody else.  They now boast more MEPs than any other UK party.  And that should matter.
UKIP MEPs have the same dropping-out bug noted above, leaving the party for various exotic reasons, and they have a (largely deserved) reputation for poor attendance and what I'd call voting against the national interest.

Yet they are the UK's most popular party when measured by representation in Brussels and Strasbourg.  My concern here is that few people vote in EU elections and not many think that MEPs matter.



It was briefly exciting in 1989 when 15% of the voters turned to the Greens, though we were still using First Past The Post then, so they elected no MEPs.  But a major reason for the Greens' high vote was that it was a protest.  Elections to the EU parliament just didn't matter, and that's still largely true today.

Parties select candidates, a small number of voters turn out to select between them, then that's it until next time.  Very few people "know who their MEP is" (we each have about half a dozen due to the regional PR system), the news never shows proceedings in the Brussels or Strasbourg parliaments (unless Farage is insulting somebody, and not even always then).  The EU Parliament is just nothing to do with us.

And that, my friends, is one of the reasons we voted for Brexit.


at

May's "disunity is not an option" election - day 2

We were greeted by a Daily Mail headline which quoted from Lenin (you know, Steve Bannon's favourite thinker) and several likenings of Theresa May to Recep Tayyip Erdogan for her "uncompromising" election announcement.





Yvette Cooper asked a pointed question (she's good at that, and she's ambushed May before).  David Mundell said something which looked rude, but (much) later he "explained" he'd actually said "leadership pitch" (she's not so good at that)





Last Friday saw the announcement of a competition between other EU cities to be the new hosts of the EU medicines and banking regulators (both are currently in London).  David Davis popped up to protest that there was no reason for them to go anywhere.


That was a silly idea then (and Davis must have known it) but the EU's Department of the Bleedin' Obvious reaffirmed on Wednesday that EU agencies must be in the EU.


Imagine (to pluck an idea from nowhere) that Scotland became independent.  Could the UK Oil and Gas Authority stay in Aberdeen?  Much of its work would have to be transferred to a Scottish body, but any remaining UK agency would have to move, probably south of the border.



Then there was the fun surrounding the Gorton byelection, which was supposed to take place on May 4th alongside the local elections.  A new MP would be elected... to a parliament which wasn't sitting... and would have to be elected again a month later.

Everybody agreed this was daft, but nobody knew who could cancel the byelection.  It wasn't the government and it wasn't Labour, who'd called the vote in the first place.  Attention rested on the local returning officer but she said it was nothing to do with her.

Finally it seemed to be decided that a special motion would have to be passed in the Commons to enable her to avoid embarrasment all round.





Theresa May has announced an election designed to give HER a mandate to offer strong leadership.  She had worked out that Brexit wasn't all going to be done by 2020 and that she should take advantage of an apparently weak opposition to buy free passage to 2022.

But then the CPS "made it clear" that decisions would come very soon on prosecutions for Tory election expense irregularities in 2015.  That couldn't possibly be part of the real motivation for an early election could it?

at

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

The ME, sorry, May, election, in June - day 1

And so Theresa May strides to the steps of Downing St (actually the middle of the road) to declare that she can't hold out against these nasty politicians frustrating Brexit (formerly known as the democratic parliamentary process) and that she must have a mandate.

She has already asserted (with no obvious backing in fact) that "There is a sense that people are coming together and uniting behind the opportunities that lie ahead".  That's her "sense", presumably, also known as wishful thinking in the service of perceived political necessity, and her view of the "opportunities" which she has religiously refused to be better than vague about.

She will have tutted when her minion David Davis spoke of achieving "the exact same benefits" from Brexit negotiations, and not over the lamentable American grammar.  He should have known - after all, everyone should know - that the target is the "best possible deal".  What is there to argue about?

The policy has been admirably summarised by... oh, somebody or other...





The main point for May, and for most commentators, is that this hurried election is solely to produce her own mandate, so that she does not have to rely on a manifesto by David Cameron (remember him? It already seems a long time) and a leadership given to her by default.
This is May's June ME election.

And after Cameron's running rings round the broadcasters in 2015, to dictate a set of TV "debates" which disadvantaged him as little as possible, May has gone one step further and tried to ban debates altogether.  A chair should be procured, with suitably modern and tasteful upholstery, to represent our prime minister in all its defiant emptiness, as debate rages around it on the election issues which aren't about ME/May.



I've put in a plea for a daily fact checking slot on the Radio 4 Today programme, supplemented by live fact checking and corrections during interviews.  I don't hold out much hope, but after last year's fact-free zone of a referendum campaign, you have to try.  Every programme, every media outlet should face the same demand.

at

Sunday, 16 April 2017

Brexit, a long and arduous birth

As Brexit negotiations emerge blinking and squalling from their nine-month gestation, stories of demands and preparations by companies and other institutions keep coming.  Here are a few from the last week.
Catastrophe looms at ports after Brexit, shipping industry warns
The Guardian reports "The UK is facing an 'absolute catastrophe' if it does not sort out a 'frictionless and seamless' border at Dover and other ports, the shipping industry has warned" and explains the disruption which could occur in UK and other ports if Theresa May's promised "deep and special relationship" doesn't turn out right.  Software and other systems would need major changes to handle the customs checks which result from anything but the perfect deal.

Then we see what the rest of the world thinks of us.
As ever, the picture is more nuanced than a tweet or headline, but the story is that Brexit has reduced the UK's attractiveness to external investors.
Transferwise boss warns fintech startups against Brexit Britain
The report begins "At a government-backed conference designed to trumpet the UK as a post-Brexit fintech powerhouse, the CEO of Transferwise went off-message, suggesting startups should avoid London and confirming that his own firm will move its European headquarters to the mainland". Though Transferwise countered:


London and the UK still have their attractions, but licensing and regulation will require at least some functions - and some companies - to be located elsewhere.  This is a widespread concern in financial businesses, with contingency plans beginning to turn into action (Lloyds TSB is now setting up an HQ in Berlin).

And, back to shipping and ports...

Shipping: Where a hard Brexit is not an option  
“They had better let us know soon,” says Guy Platten, the chief executive of the UK Chamber of Shipping, because ports like Dover, Holyhead and Zeebrugge just aren't ready for extra complexity to be added to an export-import system which has been built in a single market.

Beyond the policy vacuum?



We now have opening statements on negotiating positions from the UK government, the EU council and the EU parliament.  Michel Barnier, chief negotiator for the EU commission, will get his mandate at the end of April (rather unbelievably, a few days before the new French president is elected).  But for everybody whose lives and businesses depend on our EU relationship this still feels like a policy vacuum. There is no indication of the upheaval to come (or, of course, the sweetness, light and sunlit uplands predicted by keepers of the Brexit faith).

Every sector, every company, every institution  is coming up with its own worst case scenario and its own special demands.  Nissan, to pluck a name out of the air, will know what they were promised all those months ago, and their view of its value and limitations will be at least as good as that of the ministers who made the promise. Hundreds of companies and organisations have been consulted, though the word is that "negativity" was frowned on.

Nothing can be known for certain until the end of the negotiations, until the ink is wet on however many agreements there are in the end, and producing software, building port offices, setting up operations in another country, passing a #GreatCopyAndPasteBill can't all be done over the weekend before the grand signing.

This isn't going to stop.


at

Sunday, 26 March 2017

Why does it all have to be so complicated?

"It's OK, we can just walk away with no deal, and trade on WTO terms," they keep telling me.  "Why should Brexit be complicated?"

Well, apart from the fact that the process we're about to enter with the sending of a little Article 50 letter isn't a trade negotiation...

If we walk away with no deal that's no deal on the future rights of British ex-pats in EU countries and other EU ex-pats in the UK.  It means nobody knows the status of the border between Northern Ireland and the South, and poor Nigel Farage doesn't know where his EU pension will come from.  And a few thousand other things.

We already trade on WTO terms with most of the world. We use the EU's terms.  To reactivate the UK's membership of the World Trade Organisation we have to propose a schedule of tariffs and other ways we want to deal with the world.  And any other member of the WTO can object to our proposals.

One of those other members is the EU, part of whose schedule we would probably try to take on, to save time.  Because what we don't have is time.

At the moment we leave the EU we have to know the terms on which we deal with the EU, and "no deal" doesn't sound a good way to start.  We also lose our access to the dozens of trade agreements the EU has made while we've been a member.  Many-to-most of those might be available for quick re-signing, but at least one country has already argued that a lone UK shouldn't just get the same terms as we had while part of a 500million-strong market.

Remember all those other countries queuing up to sign shiny new trade deals with us the moment we leave?  If they have any sense at all, nothing will be finalised until they know our relationship with the EU and so what we're worth to them.  Shall we say "no deal" might well be of less value in some cases?

To say nothing of the things that Article 50 actually does cover - how far do we get without a proper legal relationship with international regulatory systems for air travel, chemicals manufacture, medicines testing and dozens of other sectors?

A lot of these things might well be easy enough to reconstruct - REconstruct, at a cost - but not if we walk out without a deal.


at

Sunday, 5 March 2017

No deal is better than a bad deal. Is a bad deal what Theresa May wants?

What is Theresa May planning for Brexit (if anything)?  She tells us she will present a deal for Parliament to approve in less than two years.  Most people who follow the news might therefore be thinking that everything will be sorted out by early 2019.  But the Article 50 process is not a trade negotiation, and nobody on the other side of the table expects to be talking about separation and trade at the same time.

The much-quoted clause 2 of the article says (my emphasis):
... the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with [the withdrawing] State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
Nothing is impossible, but insiders seem to agree that arrangements for withdrawal, coupled with an agreement on a framework for the future, can be completed within two years, but any actual trade deals will take longer, which could mean the UK is unable to do deals with non-EU countries for some time.

On the quiet, the government acknowledges this. When the CBI asks not to be left looking over the cliff edge of a sudden change in relationships, May and Brexit minister David Davis will acknowledge that time might be needed to complete the implementation of the deal.  The word "transition" sometimes passes their lips but always as if it's implementation of a deal already signed.

"No deal is better than a bad deal," May has said.  But there's no time limit on trade negotiations.  The Article 50 deadline applies only to agreement on things like money, ex-pats, membership of security, scientific and other organisations.  "Crashing out on WTO terms" is nothing to do with that, unless we make such a mess of it that we leave the EU and have to negotiate a free trade agreement from outside, but May is telling us it is.

My worry is that the government is feeding the expectation that everything will be done and dusted by 2019.  The more vociferous Brexiters don't see why it should take even that long, but if we stay "unfree" past that date there will be more than grumbles.

We're going to see a brief battle in Parliament this week over the possibility of a "meaningful" vote on whatever deals emerge, but Gina Miller is right. - we won't know for a year or more what options we will have and should fight for. We won't know for about the same time whether an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn or reversed.  Today we're in a phony war, which May wants to keep phony as long as possible.

I don't know what Parliament might have to vote on in 2018-19.  I do know that May will have to manage expectations very differently to avoid massive disappointment, backbench revolts and perhaps worse.  Farage has warned of "public anger" at any "betrayal".  Less calculating voices suggest taking to the streets.  A prime minister who seems terrified of telling us anything definite about the future might give them an excuse to deliver.

at

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Questions on the EU referendum

This morning, questions were invited by the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, to be addressed in a future programme.  I supplied the following, and may well use them for similar purposes elsewhere.

Question 1

Everybody is asking what would happen after we leave the EU, but the period of years between a vote to Leave and the agreement of a new relationship would have economic impact.  This is probably more predictable, being closer in time and mostly a matter of unncertainty.  What projections can you make about what we might call the Brinterim?

(Michael Gove has said he doesn't see us leaving the EU "this parliament" and the House Of Lords report on the subject agrees it would be a long and complicated process.)


Question 2

Is it not true that, as a matter of international law, the UK could not make trade agreements with any other country until we finalised an agreement with the EU and were no longer a member?  Wouldn't some prospective partners in any case want to see what arrangements we made with the EU, to understand what kind of deal they could make with us themselves?

Question 3

Is it not true that, as a matter of international law, any unilateral attempt to restrict immigration from the EU (and other unilateral measures) could be declared unacceptable?  It would also change the stance taken by EU negotiators.


at

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Letter to my MP - unaccompanied child refugees

I must express my concern at your vote against the Dubs amendment to the Immigration Bill, which attempted to commit the government to taking a share of the unaccompanied child refugees currently languishing in various locations across Europe.  The figure of 3000 such children has been proposed by Save the Children since at least last summer, and at least the same number of unaccompanied children is still recorded by charities despite large numbers having apparently disappeared, perhaps abducted for who knows what purposes.

The repeated wheeling out of the "pull factors" argument horrifies me.  It means that those children who have already travelled into EU countries, wherever they come from and whatever they are fleeing, must not be helped for fear of encouraging others to travel.  Their fate is irrelevant.  They must stay in the mud of the camps, at the mercy of illness, violence and gangs, in the service of this "greater imperative".

The UK government has rightly, and to its great credit, spent large sums on supporting refugee camps around Syria, and tried to enlist other countries to make similar provision.  But our attitude to those who, for whatever reason, have travelled westwards seems to be that they must be punished for their foolish decisions, or the foolish decisions of their parents.

I can only hope that you will think again when Lord Dubs' second amendment arrives in the Commons.  I would be ashamed if this country's policy continues to be that these people should just go away.
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Letter to the Laura Kuenssberg programme - Farage, Musk and "free speech"

Dear Ms Kuenssberg, I hear from BBC TV and Radio News that you will this morning be giving a platform to Nigel Farage to defend attacks on t...