Brexit

[Mr. Minnow]

This plan, forging an ad hoc coalition of May loyalists and Remainers, might actually fly:

Back May's deal, then hold people's vote: plan to end Brexit deadlock

If you can't agree on content, then at least on procedure.... 

A 2nd referendum with a choice between the negotiated deal and remaining in the European Union, will offer a clear choice and is likely to settle the issue politically. And both options are realistic and can be implemented immediately, as opposed to the many "pies in the sky"...

But..... what is our Jeremy (Corbyn) going to do? 
Neither option would be in line with his preferred Brexit solution (not in but closely aligned to the internal market), though May's deal could be moved into that direction in further negotiations. But for that to happen, Labour would need to take over government during the transition period.

Q

A referendum in which the choices are remain or May's deal would almost certainly be won by remain, given the unpopularity of May's deal with leavers and remainers alike. The problem is the Brexit ultras regard May's deal as Brexit in name only. That means they'd scream blue murder about such a referendum being an "establishment stitch-up" as it doesn't offer a "proper" Brexit, especially with chancer-in-chief Farage backing a new Brexit party. I'd like to think that if there were another referendum, he and his ilk would be relentlessly pressed by the media to produce a rigorous, detailed plan explaining exactly what they want to do and how they think they can do it. But I wouldn't hold my breath - bullshit populist slogans like "take back control" would probably be allowed to go largely unchallenged all over again.

Meanwhile, there's nothing at all worrying about this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-no-deal-brexit-fallback-plan_uk_5c617348e4b0910c63f30fc8?fbm&utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage&guccounter=1

If she really is considering going for no deal I wouldn't be at all surprised.

In recent days, May has more than ever bought into the Smith-Lewis argument that party unity has to come first, one source claims.

Yeah, sod the country - as long as the Tory party holds together, that's the important thing.

[Iota]

Yeah, sod the country - as long as the Tory party holds together, that's the important thing.

There's something dream-like about this slow slide to disaster, levers of logic/overwhelming evidence are provided to avert the disaster, but pull on them and they're made of air.
So soul sapping, partly because of the truth, of being able to sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic, but also partly because of the absurdly and pathologically unhealthy situation of a whole country being held to ransom by a tiny kernel of political self-interest, as identified by Mr M above.

It seems grasping at straws of hope and being constantly disappointed, is currently the only not completely fatalistic option for the Remainer.

[Que]

The situation seens to become more surreal as the deadline approaches.... 

But if we apply some logic to the situation, a no deal outcome would be entirely accidental since a parliamentary majority wants to avoid it...

In my view the other options are:
1. May's deal, either supported by her own party and some leavers in the opposition provided that Rees-Mogg cs. cave in, or supported by a cross party ad hoc coalition (which seems unlikely).
2. A referendum on May's deal, with remaining in the EU as a default option.

A referendum supported by May loyalists and remainers should be the most logical outcome.
But the adverserial British political system isn't built for compromise, and both May and Corbyn are sticking to their preferred options. May actually has the advantage of a deal negotiated with the EU, Corbyn has just another garden full of unicorns...
May might support another referendum to avert a no deal, Corbyn's hand would have to be forced by his own party.

Q

[The new erato]

This is looking increasingly as a game of chicken.

[Mr. Minnow]

But if we apply some logic to the situation,

Unfortunately logic doesn't seem to be of much use when it comes to Brexit.

In my view the other options are:
1. May's deal, either supported by her own party and some leavers in the opposition provided that Rees-Mogg cs. cave in, or supported by a cross party ad hoc coalition (which seems unlikely).

It's highly unlikely that Rees-Mogg and co will cave in. They're ideological fanatics, so as far as they're concerned caving in is something other people do.

2. A referendum on May's deal, with remaining in the EU as a default option.
A referendum supported by May loyalists and remainers should be the most logical outcome.

The most logical outcome perhaps - but, again, Brexit and logic have little to do with each other. As I said above, a referendum which offers the choice between May's deal or remain will never be accepted by the hardliners.   

But the adverserial British political system isn't built for compromise, and both May and Corbyn are sticking to their preferred options. May actually has the advantage of a deal negotiated with the EU, Corbyn has just another garden full of unicorns...

May has a deal which can't pass the Commons in its current form and could only pass if the EU and Ireland agreed to the sort of changes which they can in fact never agree to. The EU urged May to look at Corbyn's offer of support - CU plus close SM alignment - and seem to be a lot keener on that than the changes May wants. Naturally she's rejected that, as she wants to get it through with Tory and DUP votes. Whatever she really thinks about the CU and SM, she can never agree to a soft Brexit which includes membership of/alignment with either, let alone both. Her party would split and she knows it. As does Corbyn for that matter, which is why he could make that offer, safe in the knowledge that May could never agree to it.

May might support another referendum to avert a no deal, Corbyn's hand would have to be forced by his own party.

I cannot see May agreeing to another referendum. The Brexit ultras would go ballistic, and May would never run the risk of being the Tory leader who called another vote, lost it, and thus lost Brexit.

[Que]

Unfortunately logic doesn't seem to be of much use when it comes to Brexit.

Agreed, though the way the Brexit process is playing out is quite baffling...

It's highly unlikely that Rees-Mogg and co will cave in. They're ideological fanatics, so as far as they're concerned caving in is something other people do.

Inprobable, agreed. Though would they really be willing to sacrifice their party and powerbase?

The most logical outcome perhaps - but, again, Brexit and logic have little to do with each other. As I said above, a referendum which offers the choice between May's deal or remain will never be accepted by the hardliners.

I cannot see a majority for any other option..

May has a deal which can't pass the Commons in its current form and could only pass if the EU and Ireland agreed to the sort of changes which they can in fact never agree to. The EU urged May to look at Corbyn's offer of support - CU plus close SM alignment - and seem to be a lot keener on that than the changes May wants. Naturally she's rejected that, as she wants to get it through with Tory and DUP votes. Whatever she really thinks about the CU and SM, she can never agree to a soft Brexit which includes membership of/alignment with either, let alone both. Her party would split and she knows it. As does Corbyn for that matter, which is why he could make that offer, safe in the knowledge that May could never agree to it.

What the EU likes about Corbyn's position is that he has less red lines, which means there is additional room for negotiation. If he would be involved in a  cross party compromise or ever come to power as a PM, both of which seem increasingly unlikely. But his aim for being aligned but outside of the internal market,  and still having all the benefits... is just not realistic.

I cannot see May agreeing to another referendum. The Brexit ultras would go ballistic, and May would never run the risk of being the Tory leader who called another vote, lost it, and thus lost Brexit.

I don't think she is going to keep the Tories together in a disastrous no deal. She might have to choose the rest of her party and her country over the ultras.

Q

[The new erato]

Facebook is an out-of-control train wreck that is destroying democracy and must be brought under control. The final report of parliament's inquiry into fake news and disinformation does not use this language, precisely, but it is, nonetheless, the report's central message. And the language it does use is no less damning.

Facebook behaves like a "digital gangster". It considers itself to be "ahead of and beyond the law". It "misled" parliament. It gave statements that were "not true". Its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has treated British lawmakers with "contempt". It has pursued a "deliberate" strategy to deceive parliament.

In terms of how lawmakers across the globe need to think about Silicon Valley, the report is a landmark. The first really comprehensive attempt of a major legislative body to peer into the dark heart of a dark economy of data manipulation and voter influence. And to come up with a set of recommendations that its chair, the Conservative MP for Bournemouth, Damian Collins, says must involve "a radical shift in the balance of power between the platforms and the people".
A withering verdict: MPs report on Zuckerberg, Russia and Cambridge Analytica
Read more

The scale of the report – it drew from 170 written submissions and evidence from 73 witnesses who were asked more than 4,350 questions – is without precedent. And it's what contributes to making its conclusions so damning: that the government must now act. That Facebook must be regulated. That Britain's electoral laws must be re-written from the bottom up; the report is unequivocal, they are not "fit for purpose". And that the government must now open an independent investigation into foreign interference in all British elections since 2014.

Cambridge Analytica was already on the committee's radar when the scandal broke in March last year. But, over the ensuing weeks and months, it interviewed an extraordinary cast of characters to drill down into the underlying machinery of the new political power structures. And the result – a doorstopper of a report covering multiple interconnected issues – damns Facebook not just once or twice but time and time again.

https://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Ftechnology%2F2019%2Ffeb%2F18%2Fa-digital-gangster-destroying-democracy-the-damning-verdict-on-facebook

[vandermolen]

I had a Brexit-themed letter in the Times on Saturday:

'Those responsible for Brexit decision-making should be cognisant of the disastrous consequences of focusing on the goal rather than the process. This is well articulated in Oliver Burkeman's book The Antidote, where in the chapter Goal Crazy he identifies the disastrous Everest expedition of 1996 as a classic example of such a misguided approach. The obsession with reaching the summit of Everest meant that considerations of timing and safety were ignored, as a result of which many members of the expedition, including two of the leaders died.
In its way exactly the same goal-led obsession is governing Brexit. We have to leave on March 29 regardless of the increasingly obvious disastrous consequences to our nation.'

I drew the attention of my wife and daughter to my letter. My daughter said that she liked it but said that I had a morbid obsession with the 1996 Everest disaster. My wife liked it too but said that I am a 'show off'.

[The new erato]

 Yes you even promote composers the plebs haven't heard of.

[Mr. Minnow]

Inprobable, agreed. Though would they really be willing to sacrifice their party and powerbase?

Cast your mind back to the Major government in the 90s. The hardliners' obsession with the EU was one of the biggest factors in the Tories being slaughtered in the 1997 election. Did the ultras care? Not a bit. They have form for this.

I cannot see a majority for any other option..

There probably isn't a majority for a remain/May's deal referendum either, at least not right now. It isn't just most Tories and the DUP who would oppose it, there are Labour MPs who would vote against it too. That includes more than a dozen on the front bench, who have warned that they'd resign if Corbyn backed it. That may change if we get to a situation in which a referendum is the only viable option to avoid a no deal, but we're not there yet (and we may well not get there at all).   

What the EU likes about Corbyn's position is that he has less red lines, which means there is additional room for negotiation. If he would be involved in a  cross party compromise or ever come to power as a PM, both of which seem increasingly unlikely. But his aim for being aligned but outside of the internal market,  and still having all the benefits... is just not realistic.

It's obviously flawed, but probably still more realistic than May demanding the sort of changes to the backstop that the ERG are pressing for - as you say, it leaves more room for negotiation. But in any case there's no prospect of May agreeing to it, so as of now it's largely academic.

I don't think she is going to keep the Tories together in a disastrous no deal. She might have to choose the rest of her party and her country over the ultras.

The problem is the ERG have the numbers to vote down any deal they don't like and there are more of them than the Tory remainers. As a result, every time she's had a choice of standing up to the ERG or caving in to them she's chosen the latter. Whichever way she jumps she'll lose a wing of her party, so it may well be that they do split. Here's hoping.

[vandermolen]

Yes you even promote composers the plebs haven't heard of.

Haha!

[Que]

Yesterday I attended a lecture on current affairs of the EU, given by the recently retired (Dutch) secretary-general of the Commission (highest civil-servant).

On Brexit he was unreservedly pessimistic...

It seems that the EU is bracing for impact, rather than preparing for last minute concessions...

Which means that the endgame will be taking place in British parliament.

Q

PS He also mentioned that civil servants at the EU who are British nationals will keep their jobs, and that some of them have indeed recently been appointed to high ranking positions. Nonetheless, sofar half of them have assumed the nationality of another member state.

[vandermolen]

Any views on current political developments in the UK with Labour and Conservative MPs leaving their respective parties and forming an Independent group? Personally I'm pleased to see anything which reaffirms liberal values in the face of increasing intolerance and polarisation.

[Florestan]

PS He also mentioned that civil servants at the EU who are British nationals will keep their jobs, and that some of them have indeed recently been appointed to high ranking positions. Nonetheless, sofar half of them have assumed the nationality of another member state.

British pride, I presume. 

No, really, I have the vivid impression that British politicians irrespective of persuasion have collectively decided to make fools of themsselves big time. We want out but also in, we want in but also out and actually we don't even know what we want anymore. It's sad to see such a glorious country having become the laughing stock of the world.

[vandermolen]

British pride, I presume. 

No, really, I have the vivid impression that British politicians irrespective of persuasion have collectively decided to make fools of themsselves big time. We want out but also in, we want in but also out and actually we don't even know what we want anymore. It's sad to see such a glorious country having become the laughing stock of the world.

I don't disagree with this assessment, which is rather sad really. I hope that more MPs of all political persuasions defect to the new Independent cross-party group.

[Mr. Minnow]

Any views on current political developments in the UK with Labour and Conservative MPs leaving their respective parties and forming an Independent group? Personally I'm pleased to see anything which reaffirms liberal values in the face of increasing intolerance and polarisation.

On the whole, not a very impressive bunch as far as I'm concerned. Joan Ryan and Mike Gapes are rather fond of condemning the entire Labour Party as "a racist party" because of the actions of a tiny minority of idiots, thus tarring hundreds of thousands of people with that brush. Chris Leslie brushed off questions about Angela Smith's rather unfortunate comments with the response that such questions are being asked because there are powerful vested interests out to squash the Independent Group. I wonder if he would have been so understanding if that comment had come from a Corbyn-supporting MP; I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that he wouldn't.

But the real problems with this lot relate to policy. Anna Soubry said in the press conference that she fully supported the coalition's austerity policies. That's the vicious shit meted out to the poorest people by that sociopathic tosser Osborne that she's talking about. She has no problem with that, but I wonder what any other Labour MPs thinking of jumping ship think about it. The Labour right objects to being called Red Tories, but if they leave Labour to join MPs who voted for austerity, and in Soubry's case voice strong support for it, then they can't really complain.

But then maybe they won't mind Soubry's comments so much: it's the right of the party which was so utterly spineless in its capitulation to the Tories' austerity agenda before Corbyn won the leadership. That resulted in the Tories having more or less carte blanche to do what they wanted, safe in the knowledge that Labour's response would be "me too, but even more!", so perhaps these are their more natural political allies. Some from the New Labour era, including John Rentoul, Philip Collins and Blair himself, have made it quite clear that they don't object to Corbyn because they think he can't win: they still wouldn't support any government with his policies even if they thought it would win, because they don't want a left wing government. They'd rather have a Tory government led by the likes of Cameron or May, and if that means the Tories staying in power to shaft the very people the Labour right claims to care about, well, so be it. It would seem that that attitude is quite prevalent among Labour MPs too.

It's worth noting that while the right of the party has been engaged in a near continuous fit of the vapours ever since Corbyn won the leadership, there is no indication that they've learned anything from it or paused to reflect on why it happened. Their only "explanation" appears to be that a hitherto undetected army of hundreds of thousands of Trots and Stalinists was lying in wait for the day that someone from the left of the party won the leadership, at which point they all joined en masse. At no point does it appear to have occurred to them that maybe an awful lot of people were pissed off with the "choice" between a very right wing party and an ever so slightly less right wing party and wanted a genuine alternative. For similar reasons they couldn't believe the result of the 2017 election, when Corbyn's policies actually turned out to be rather popular. For all their hatred of Corbyn, the right hasn't even come close to coming up with an alternative set of policies which could fire the enthusiasm of Labour voters and provide a basis for winning power.   

At present it seems the only thing that really binds the IG together is opposition to Brexit and supporting a referendum, but that's nowhere near enough. If they want to be a party with a coherent set of policies they've got an awful lot of work to do. Maybe they'll manage it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Just calling themselves "moderates" isn't going to be enough either. Yvette Cooper is often hailed as a "Labour moderate", yet she had a key role in screwing over chronically ill and disabled people with the now notorious Work Capability Assessment, one of the biggest social policy disasters of recent years, which is still ongoing and has driven thousands upon thousands of vulnerable people into destitution and in some cases early graves. If that's an example of moderation then the word is drained of all meaning.

I suspect there will be a lot more Labour than Tory MPs who join the IG. Since the Attlee government, there have only been two occasions when the left has been in control of the Labour party: in the early 1980s, and now. For the rest of the time it's been the right in control, never more so than during the New Labour era. When the right has been in control and it's been the left on the margins, the left were expected to suck it up for the good of the party. Yet when the boot has been on the other foot, a section of the right has flounced out in a huff. It's happening now, and it happened in the early 80s with the formation of the SDP. That resulted in the anti-Tory vote splitting, and 18 years of Tory rule. Early polling suggests that the IG would hurt Labour a lot more than the Tories in an election, so history may be about to repeat itself. Isn't that a cheery thought? 

So, we'll have to wait and see how things develop, but I can't see me getting on board with the Funny Tingers as things stand.   

[vandermolen]

Thanks for such an interesting analysis. Let's wait and see what happens.

[Mr. Minnow]

Heidi Allen has said the Funny Tingers will support May in any vote of no confidence. This must be the "new, fresh" politics Chris Leslie was talking about. Apparently they don't want to do anything which could result in a general election. I'm not surprised - at this rate they'd be lucky to keep their deposits, let alone their seats. With this, Angela Smith "misspeaking" and Soubry's enthusiastic endorsement of Osborne's austerity they're really off to a flier.

[Que]

Recent British foreign ministers seem to have knack in making new European friends....

Another example of Jeremy Hunt being out of his depth, saying that Slovenia was a "Soviet vassal state", apparently unaware of the history of Yugoslavia.

I guess the motto of Brexit is: "Why be part of Europe, if you don't have any clue whatsoever what it is about?"
Which actually makes a lot of sense to me...

Q

[Que]

The deadline is so close,  but so little is certain about the endgame...

I still think that it's either going to be May's deal, or a referendum on that deal.

Barnier thinks May's chances have improved, and is working on an add on to the withdrawal treaty.

I think he is right. A significant part of the Tory hardliners will climb back on board when faced with the alternative options of a delay, a soft Brexit or a referendum with the possibility of no Brexit. If they will be joined by Labour leavers, May might just make it....

In case May's deal is approved or a referendum on it, a delay is inevitable...
But not beyond the EU elections in May, because the Germans have identified serious legal problems if the UK wouldn't participate in those elections while still a member state. And they're quite right.

Q