|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 28, 2019 9:20:30 GMT -5
Wednesday's House of Commons indicative voting on 8 Brexit-related proposals confirmed that there's not a majority for anything. May had hoped to bring up her deal this week, but only if she's sure it will win. The Government announced that it may call it up on Friday, which means she still lacks the votes. So, what's it all mean? A Guardian columnist sums up four takeaways: "First, it’s game on when it comes to a confirmatory referendum. With 268 votes – over 20 more than the number of votes May managed to get for her deal at the second meaningful vote – it was the most popular option of the night. Sure, it was opposed by 295 MPs. [Note: the noes did not get anywhere near the majority of 334 achieved just last week.] But after another week of uncertainty and if Theresa May were to accept a referendum on her deal as the price of getting it through parliament, it looks far from an unlikely outcome. "Second, there’s been a lot of talk about a soft Brexit – 'common market 2.0', with the UK remaining part of the customs union and the single market – being the option that MPs are most likely to rally round. Wednesday night’s results show this was an optimistic assessment. It only got 188 votes in favour. [This is more or less Labour's official position.] "Third, the House of Commons has in the past expressed that it is against no deal, but been reluctant to take any meaningful action to prevent no deal. And so it proved when it came to Joanna Cherry’s amendment to revoke article 50 if no deal is imminent. In the end MPs simply weren’t prepared to back something that mentioned revoking article 50 – regardless of the fact that almost 6 million members of the public have signed a petition calling for just that. Some MPs may change their minds the closer we get to a cliff edge. But Wednesday night shows that crashing out remains a live possibility. "Fourth, there were a significant number of MPs who expressed that they’d be happy with no deal. And within that group, there is a much smaller group of Conservative hardliners who will never vote for May’s deal. The DUP has remained steadfast in its opposition to her deal. But even if it were to swing behind it, once you take into account that hard rump of Tories, May is likely to need the votes of at least 15-20 Labour MPs to get it through. And this is where May’s real problem lies. There is no compromise that brings together the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and a sufficient number of Labour MPs, because both groups want fundamentally different things. The Rees-Moggs of this world see the Tory leadership prize as the chance for a hard Brexiter to shape their ideal future relationship with the EU. But Labour MPs will only back May’s deal in sufficient numbers if they can extract watertight guarantees of a soft Brexit that protects workers’ rights." linkIn short, it may be that May can make only an asymptotic approach to passing her deal--one that gets closer and closer without every reaching a majority because at some point getting some votes from one faction costs needed votes from another. And that could mean that May is forced to accept that the choices boil down to four: (a) crash out with no deal, which she herself told Tory MPs this week she will not allow; (2) revoke Article 50 and end Brexit altogether, which would destroy what's left of the Conservative Party; (3) call a national election, which might cost the Tories control of Government and would require a further delay, perhaps forcing new European Parliament elections in May; or (4) allowing her deal to pass with a requirement for an up-or-down vote by the public--which also will require a May vote for MEPs. It's pretty clear that (4) is the option that gives both the bulk of Brexit supporters (not the hard-liners, though) and of remainers something they support. That doesn't mean it will happen, but it has the virtue of splitting the difference, often the best solution to political stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 28, 2019 14:05:24 GMT -5
Now May has gone into Hail Mary mode: she's going to ask the House to pass only the Withdrawal agreement, but not the Political Declaration, which sets out the parameters for future UK-EU relationship. The vote will come in a rare Friday session. But it's clear it likely will lose. Boris Johnson already has said the deal is "dead anyway," perhaps 30 ERG members are still against it (some declaring so today), and the DUP has nixed the deal again. On the Labour side, the Brexit shadow secretary warns that the next phase will be a “Boris Johnson Brexit, a Jacob Rees-Mogg Brexit, or a Michael Gove Brexit..If the prime minister tries to separate the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration altogether, that only makes matters worse. We would be leaving the EU, but with absolutely no idea where we are heading. That cannot be acceptable and Labour will not vote for it.” link If, as now expected, this thing loses for the third time tomorrow, on Monday, when round 2 of the "indicative vote" process returns I would not be surprised to see that the Speaker brings up just a two or three proposals from those discussed yesterday, including the one that got the most votes: a confirmatory vote by the public for any deal that passes. And I would expect that before a vote on that there will be an amendment attaching May's deal, which would allow the House to tell May that if she tables her deal with a public vote requirement her long nightmare will be (nearly) over. Judging by polls, it seems likely that when put to a public vote it will lose, and Brexit will end. OK, perhaps that's being too optimistic, but EU Council President Donald Tusk this week asked the EU Parliament to be patient and allow the UK more time if it decides to reconsider the 2016 referendum, and not do anything on their end that prematurely imposes Brexit on both sides. Good luck, President Tusk.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 29, 2019 10:46:25 GMT -5
May tried to resurrect her deal by splitting the two parts she's said for months are inseparable, while offering to quit if this vote succeeded. Nope, didn't work. Oh, she got a few ERG members to support her, but only because it would speed her exit and replacement by an ERG-led Government. But not enough of them, few Labour Brexiteers, and none of the DUP. Result: 286-344, a 58-vote defeat. Yes, that's much less than the defeats by 230 and 149 votes in the previous two tries. But those were the biggest and fourth-biggest defeats by a sitting Government in UK history. In normal circumstances, a loss by 58 votes would be seen as cause for the Government to resign; it's actually huge by House standards.
This was the last day the EU gave for the UK to agree to the Withdrawal Agreement before triggering an automatic no-deal Brexit on April 12. Already Donald Tusk has called for an emergency summit of EU heads of government next week to deal with this pending emergency. May hinted that this will require the UK to request a further extension, which will require participation in EU Parliament elections on May 23. Hard Brexiteers now face the prospect that their longed-for dream of leaving the EU may fail completely, because such an extension almost certainly will raise pressure on the House to abandon Brexit, or at least commit to submitting any new deal to the UK electorate for ratification, which most likely will result in rejection.
Meanwhile, the 11 Labour and Tory backbenchers who left their party to become Independents have announced that they will register a new party on Monday, with plans to run candidates in the EU elections that now are all but inevitable. The Labour and SNP leaders have called for May tor resign and call a new election, but that may not happen because of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act passed a few years ago which requires that a Parliament sit for its full 5-year term unless a majority of the House votes to call an early election, which seems unlikely at this point.
This continues the long-running crisis in the UK triggered by David Cameron's acquiescence to the ERG's demand for the referendum of 2015. It's been a polarizing exercise that has destabilized the country and humiliated its governing institutions over what has been for decades an ideological and power struggle within the Tory Party. The whole thing is shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 30, 2019 16:54:32 GMT -5
So, after her deal lost yet again on Friday, May's speech in reaction included a warning that this Parliament was “reaching the limits of this process.” That's code for "If you don't pass this next week I'm going to call a new election." The backlash today was unexpectedly tough: "Conservative MPs from across the party are threatening to vote down any attempt by Theresa May to lead them into a snap election, warning it would split the Tories and exacerbate the Brexit crisis...The threat of an election immediately angered both pro-Brexit and pro-Remain MPs. May would need a two-thirds majority in the Commons to secure one, meaning a serious rebellion by Tories could block it. May would then be forced to secure an election by backing a no-confidence vote in her own government, which only requires a simple majority of MPs." linkBasically, there's almost no one on the Tory benches looking to face the electorate in the middle of this gigantic cock-up (as the Brits would say). The polls show that support for May has plummeted over the past few weeks as the crisis has gotten worse: "A survey undertaken by Ipsos MORI shows Theresa May’s Government has the worst public satisfaction ratings in comparison to David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher’s Governments." And all the horse-race polls published over the past week or so show the parties in a statistical dead heat. That's actually good news for Labour, which had been behind by 4-11 points in all February polls. An election does not have to be called until 2022, and the last thing most Tories want is to hold one now, when they may be at an ebb due to their inability to manage Brexit at all--while largely ignoring all the other major issues voters care about. Moreover, an election now would roil the internal politics of the party at a time when at least 6 and perhaps a dozen senior members are preparing to stake their claim to the PM's office in the next few weeks, plans that would be deferred for months by a new election with May leading the party. At least three groups have emerged: • Pro-Brexit ministers are threatening to resign should May agree to adopt a permanent customs union with the EU this week. • A new group of moderate Conservatives, led by Amber Rudd, has been organising in an attempt to stop the party moving further to the right under a new leader. • Several more Tories are poised to support the idea of a referendum on any deal eventually passed by parliament. That last position is coming to be more popular across the House, despite initial hostility on nearly all sides. With the Government clearly unable to pull together a majority for their plan, and unwilling to accept any alternative that might form a majority in the House (but not among the Tories themselves), the logic of the argument that going back to the voters for a "confirmatory vote" on May's agreement with the EU somehow subverts democracy because of the results of a referendum held 3 years ago has collapsed entirely. The reality is that May leads a minority Government propped up by the 10 DUP Members, who will not vote for her deal under any circumstances, and about 30 Tories who also won't do it. There just are not 40 + Labour votes to offset those losses, so she cannot win. Unless, of course, she agrees to a popular vote, in which case dozens of opposition Members will vote with her or just abstain, allowing her plan to pass. It's that or no-deal, and she herself has ruled out the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 30, 2019 18:00:47 GMT -5
This video is the best analysis of Brexit I've seen in the whole 3 years of this catastrophe:
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 31, 2019 16:49:24 GMT -5
One irony of Brexit is that David Cameron agreed to hold the 2016 referendum for the sole purpose of bringing the Tory Party together by giving the anti-EU faction a chance to prove to themselves that the voters would not support leaving the EU. That backfired, and now the party is more divided than ever, and the country with it: "Theresa May’s government is on the verge of meltdown as cabinet ministers prepare to clash over whether to support plans for a softer Brexit and a possible lengthy delay before leaving the European Union. In a decisive intervention, David Gauke, the justice secretary, said on Sunday that the prime minister would have to accept the possibility of backing a customs union if the measure is supported by parliament this week. But this was dismissed by Brexiters, including those in cabinet, who have threatened to resign if May accepts a customs union or submits to a delay that goes beyond 22 May." linkSo, if May softens her Brexit agreement one faction will resign from the Cabinet, but if she doesn't the other faction will. Virtually no one in her Cabinet, the Party, the House, or the electorate approves of her deal, even most of those who have voted for it out of partisan loyalty. This is why May has kept delaying the final-final decision, hoping to panic every side to support her deal because they're even more worried about some other outcome, a no-deal Brexit on one side, or no Brexit at all on the other. This is what happens when people holding serious positions of responsibility decide to act irresponsibly.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 2, 2019 13:05:01 GMT -5
There is light at the end of the tunnel: "Theresa May is to ask for another brief Brexit extension as a means of seeking a compromise withdrawal plan with the Labour party, she has announced, heralding the likelihood of Downing Street backing a softer Brexit. In a brief TV statement inside No 10 following a seven-hour cabinet meeting, the prime minister said she would hold talks with Jeremy Corbyn to seek a Brexit plan they could agree on and 'both could put to the house'. If agreement with the Labour leader was impossible, May said, the plan would be to put to a vote in parliament a series of Brexit options, with the government committing to enact whatever idea won support." linkWell, hallelujah! This is what May probably should have done when she became PM, and certainly after she lost her House majority. But better late than too-late, after an unintended no-deal Brexit. May wants to ask the EU for an extension until May 22, to avoid the need for EU elections while finding a cross-party proposal that could win House support. The likely outcome now is a Brexit that takes the UK out of the EU's political institutions (Parliament, Council, Court), but leaves it inside the Customs Union and possibly the Single Market, thus avoiding a hard border in Ireland. The ERG will be furious (they usually are) but they're a minority and about all they can do is leave the Tory Party to set up their own, but to what end, once the UK is out of the EU?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 3, 2019 11:02:58 GMT -5
So, it looks as if May's meeting with Corbyn this afternoon, and a follow-up with the leaders of the other 5 opposition parties, may be window-dressing designed to cover a major retreat: accepting a much longer Brexit delay, and thus the need to hold EU elections next month. As one columnist points out: "If the prime minister was sincere in her offer to Corbyn, she would have announced that the cabinet had accepted a permanent customs union, so long as safeguards and a say could be negotiated, as per Labour’s demands. A customs union is also the option that came closest to achieving a majority in Monday night’s indicative votes. Given that May has already conceded a customs union in the withdrawal agreement (in the absence of any known solutions to the Irish border problem, the backstop isn’t a fall-back but rather the default), this should have been straightforward to offer. So why didn’t May offer a customs union in her address last night? May cannot puncture the illusion that the UK will not be in a customs union. If she openly acknowledges a permanent customs union as a compromise with Labour, her party will split." linkAs a more pithy BBC tweet puts it: "This is worthy of Yes Prime Minister. Govt source on challenge of reaching agreement between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn on a customs union: our position is a customs union but we don’t call it that. Labour’s position is not a customs union but they do call it that. So the source says the challenge is to persuade Jeremy Corbyn to sign up to Theresa May’s non customs union customs union and not call it a customs union. This would put the UK in a customs union with the EU which would then not be called a customs union ." Well said! The EU negotiator already has rejected the idea of another short extension today, anyway. Basically, May is going to kick the can further down the road by holding these meetings, then living through some more "indicative votes" in the House, and finally giving in next week to the need for a long extension. This could be the beginning of the end for Brexit because time has been on the side of the remainers as public opinion keeps shifting away from this idea. And the Brexiteers know that, which is why they want to leave on April 12 without a deal, which May has ruled out (costing her yet another Cabinet minister today). .
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 4, 2019 10:31:56 GMT -5
On Wednesday a couple of senior back-benchers, one Labour the other Tory, pulled off the unusual feat of putting through a bill that changes the European Union Withdrawal Act to prevent a no-deal Brexit. This was whipped against by the Government, and though it passed by only one vote, 313-312, that's so rare it normally would require the Government to resign. And they managed to do this within just six hours, from the time they put up their motion, through first and second readings, and to passage, at around 11:30 pm. Unlike previous motions to prevent a no-deal Brexit that were non-binding, this was a change in law that is binding.
Today the House of Lords is taking up the bill, and here we see the roots of the US Senate's filibuster and cloture. The Brexiteers are proposing one amendment after another to prevent the bill from coming to a vote. But each time one of these amendments comes up, within a relatively short time one supporter of the bill will call for a vote. The Chair then reads a required notice that closure (as they call it) is a measure to be undertaken only under extraordinary circumstances, then asks the Lord who called for cloture whether he/she wishes to continue to require a vote. Once they say yes, a vote is held. Unlike in the Commons, the Lords vote either "content" with the motion or "not content". Over and over (voting on 8th killer amendment now) the votes are "not content" by margins of 100 votes or more, so it's clear that the House of Lords will pass the bill, probably tonight. Indeed, in anticipation of these filibuster attempts supporters of the bill made clear yesterday that they were prepared to spend the whole night, if necessary, to get this on to the Queen for her signature by tomorrow.
In short, Parliament is about to block any attempt to force the UK out of the EU without a deal. In the absence of a deal, the Government would be forced to request a long extension (the EU seems to want it to run until December 2021), which means running candidates in the EU elections in May, for which all parties already are getting prepared. It also means that no Brexit bill is likely to clear Parliament until a new election, which could put an anti-Brexit majority in place, perhaps a coalition of Labour, SNP, and Lib-Dems. In any case, it's increasingly likely that Brexit probably will not happen soon, and very possibly not at all.
EDIT: The final Lords vote on the bill will be on Monday under a deal worked out among leaders of both major parties in both Houses. This likely will include some technical amendments, but allow the Commons to pass the bill as amended and send it to the Queen in time for May to go to the emergency meeting of EU heads of government on Wednesday to present an action plan in support of a longer extension.
Meanwhile, May and her Brexit team are preparing a letter to go to Corbyn tonight outlining a process going forward (apparently they have not agreed on a compromise on the substance), including--significantly--allowing Commons to vote on holding a confirmatory vote on any plan for Brexit. That's an amazing concession.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 5, 2019 10:49:17 GMT -5
"British Prime Minister Theresa May said Friday she was beginning preparations to hold an election for the European Parliament despite her country’s desire to quit the European Union, an acknowledgment that its divorce efforts could be significantly delayed. In a letter to a top E.U. official, May asked for Britain’s departure date from the European Union to be delayed until June 30 and said she would order a vote in late May to elect British members of the European Parliament, assuming Britain is still an E.U. member. Without a reprieve from the other 27 leaders of E.U. nations, Britain is due to crash out of the club without a safety net on April 12." linkThis is getting close to a surrender of Brexit. A bad idea is being buried, largely by it's own most adamant supporters, who refuse to compromise. The decision to hold these elections means that the UK will remain in the EU well past June 30, but given their inability to agree on what to do next, the Government's fragility, the absolute decision not to leave without a deal, and the near-certainty that any deal would have to be approved by an increasingly skeptical electorate, it's hard to see how they get out at all. Maybe the "Little England" crowd within the Tory Party finally will realize that while they have the capacity to wreak havoc on the UK's political system, they lack the ability to bring home their one key policy. Or not: “If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible. We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes.” -- Jacob Rees-Mogg *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 6, 2019 15:34:41 GMT -5
Parliament is not in session today, but that just means the Tories are busier than ever threatening to tear their own party to shreds: Theresa May is being warned by her mutinous MPs that they will move to oust her within weeks if the UK is forced to take part in European elections next month and extend its EU membership beyond the end of June. Tory MPs are increasingly angry at the prospect of voters being asked to go to the polls to elect MEPs three years after the Brexit referendum, in an election they fear will be boycotted by many Conservatives and be a gift to the far right and Nigel Farage’s new Brexit party. Senior Tories said one silver lining of a long extension would be that it would allow them to move quickly to force May out, and hold a leadership election starting as soon as this month. The warnings came as the prime minister made a last desperate appeal on Saturday night to MPs to back a deal, saying there was an increasing danger Brexit would “slip though our fingers”. May said: 'Because parliament has made clear it will stop the UK leaving without a deal, we now have a stark choice: leave the European Union with a deal or do not leave at all.'" linkActually, this has been the real choice all along, so when May says we "now have a stark choice" she's not saying anything at all new. No one really believed that this hung Parliament was going to let a minority of Tories force the country out of the UE without a deal; that threat was just the Government's feeble attempt to woo waverers to support her deal. Now she's trying to scare the hard-core Brexiteers with the threat of no Brexit if they don't back her deal. Her problem is that the ERG extremists can see they're within days of achieving their fondest hopes if they can keep May from getting her deal through and show the EU that they also will thwart any later solution, while the remainers increasingly like their chances of blocking Brexit by holding out until Wednesday, when the EU will force the UK to accept participating in the MEP elections. There simply are not enough Members between those two groups for her deal to prevail. My guess is that this week she will agree to a long extension and continued EU membership...which will not end later this year, or next year, or for the foreseeable future. This whole exercise has been botched by the Tories, and they're about to pay a big price. Rather than ending their divisions over the EU the past three years of exacerbated them to the point that the party is on the verge of a major split. Labour also is split on the issue, but much less so, with about 80 percent of their voters, party members, and MPs opposed to leaving the EU. It's by now obvious that the idea of a leftist Brexit, or Lexit, makes no sense because leaving the EU will leave the UK economy smaller and generate less government revenue, effectively blocking the socialist ambitions of Corbyn and his supporters. They actually would be able to do more within the EU than outside it, which is why the front bench now is embracing the need for a public vote on any Brexit that might pass the Commons and Lords.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 9, 2019 9:38:21 GMT -5
So, last night the House of Lords approved the Cooper-Letwin bill forcing the Government to seek an extension of Brexit past this coming Friday, but leaving it for an amendable motion to be tabled this week to set a new date. That's likely to be June 30 for now, but The Guardian reports that internal memos it has seen indicate the EU will insist on an extension until December 31, forcing the UK to participate in EU Parliament elections next month.
It's hard for an American to appreciate fully just how jarring the passage of this bill, in a mere 3 sitting days, has been for the UK Parliament. First, the House of Commons voted to allow backbenchers to take control of the Order Paper--effectively the House's daily agenda--on specific days. There is almost no precedent for this, because it is the Government's prerogative under the British system to set the terms of debate. Next, the Commons passed the legislation over the Government's opposition; true it was by only 1 vote, but that it came to a vote at all, much less passed, turned the legislative process on its head. All of that happened within six hours, something not seen at Westminster for decades. Then it went to the House of Lords, where the Government succeeded in slowing it down on Thursday, but only until Monday, when it passed easily, in time to reach the Queen for Royal Assent (not quite equivalent to a presidential signature) in time for the Commons to give final passage late Monday night. The entire thing took only three legislative days.
Basically, backbench Members on both the Opposition and Government sides took control of Parliament away from the Government. This is a shocking development, one that caused parliamentarians to ask questions such as: Who's responsible for answering questions about the bill, if the Government is not proposing it? Who will take the lead in making any changes in response to debate and committee reports? Most important, who ultimately can be held accountable for how it's administered, given that the Government opposed it and the backbenchers have no responsibility to govern? These are not trivial questions in a parliamentary system where the Government is embedded in the Parliament itself, and answerable to it. It's as if the Members of Congress had just taken over direct control of the Executive Branch agencies from the President--a constitutional crisis in either case.
In other words, Brexit, and the botched effort to make it work, now has damaged the normal processes of government, scrambling the assumed relationship between the Government of the Day and the Opposition, the role of Members, and the orderly consideration of legislation. Members on all sides are trying to make the case that this is an extraordinary situation that should not be taken as precedent, but in fact it is by definition precedent in the making--you can't undue it now that it's been done. And given that the UK has no written constitution, precedents like this are what define what is and is not constitutional. Just another price of Brexit: the disordering of the UK's constitutional system in order to avert something even worse. What a mess!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 9, 2019 14:11:24 GMT -5
What a difference three months can make! The Guardia released its latest poll on Brexit today, and the results are stunning; excerpts: 1. Staying in the EU now holds a commanding lead over the government’s dealFor most of this year, polls have shown remain ahead of leave, typically by four to six points. But in a referendum between staying in the EU and leaving on the terms that the government has negotiated, staying enjoys an 18-point lead: 59-41%...And pro-Europeans are significantly more enthusiastic than Brexiters. Counting only those who say they are certain to vote in a “no Brexit” v “May’s deal” referendum, staying in the EU currently leads by 63-37%. An 18-point lead among all voters therefore widens eight points, to 26%, among those certain to vote. 2. Millions of 2016’s leave voters have lost faith in Brexit’s ability to make life betterFew erstwhile leave voters now think Brexit will make life better. Three months ago, 43% of leave voters thought Brexit would make the economy stronger. Just 12% feared it would make the economy weaker. Today, only 24% of leave voters say “stronger”, while slightly more, 26%, say “weaker”. That’s a huge, 33-point drop for “stronger” in the net difference between the two views since the beginning of September. 3. Labour could suffer badly if it ends up facilitating BrexitYouGov asked people how they would vote if Labour, along with the Conservatives, supported going ahead with Brexit. Labour slumps to third place, with 22%, behind the Liberal Democrats, who would jump to 26%. Moreover, most Labour leave voters who take sides back a people’s vote, by 56-44%. Again, the evidence suggests little downside to Labour backing a people’s vote. Indeed, among Labour supporters generally, such a vote is massively popular, with 77% in favour and just 23% against. A further challenge for Jeremy Corbyn is to persuade voters that he could get a better Brexit deal if he were prime minister. This claim is rejected by 68%-11% of voters generally, by 47%-30% of Labour voters, and – perhaps most ominously – by 52-23% of Labour leave voters...Just 18% of voters (and 20% of Conservatives) think a different [Troy] leader could get a better Brexit deal – 60% of all voters (and 70% of Conservatives) disagree. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/20/polls-stay-eu-yougov-brexit-peoples-voteWhat's changed to make these number shift so decisively after three years in which they remained close to the 2016 results? May's deal. Remember, it was unveiled only in November, but because she quickly put off the December vote there had been little public debate about either the deal or its potential implications, particularly as regards the Irish border. But the Commons debate has been virtually non-stop since January, and the reaction of the British public as the details emerged now is clear: a big majority no longer believe Brexit is worth it. And because of this failed effort (and I do expect it to fail) the Brexiteers will be sidelined for a generation or more, no doubt writing about the "stab in the back" (the new narrative they've devised) that killed Brexit. And then they'll die off, and the whole affair will become a sub-chapter, later demoted to a footnote, and then dropped into the ashcan of European history. This is a case where good policy = good politics. Corbyn should stop wasting time in futile negotiations with May whose only purpose is to pretend something's happening in order to get the EU to approve and extension--they're going to do it, anyway. He should stop trying to placate the two dozen or so Labour MPs in leave districts; they represent a minority of the party electorate, but sticking with them risks major losses among the 80 percent or so of Labour voters who want to stay in the EU--and splitting votes with the LDs means more Brexiteer Tories slipping into the House. Just demand a "people's confirmatory vote" in exchange for letting May's deal pass and get it over with. It's now pretty clear why the Brexiteers have been so vociferously nasty this past couple of weeks. They know that--in no small part because of their own intransigence--the decades-long war they've been waging to pull the UK out of the EU, which seemed securely within grasp just a few months ago, now is slipping through their fingers. A long extension to the end of this year almost certainly spells doom.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 10, 2019 19:27:34 GMT -5
Macron decided to humiliate May and the UK tonight, insisting on a short extension while Merkel pushed for a long one. The result was a compromise: Article 50 was extended until October 31 (yes, Hallowe'en). In return, Macron extracted a June review of whether the UK was playing nicely with the other kids, specifically by holding Europarliament elections in May and actually seating MEPs, while not disrupting the EU's business. If they fail, they're out on June 30, period. Macron's getting dissed by EU officials talking to reporters without attribution, with one grousing, "Tonight's summit was not about the UK but about France." But he may have made a politically savvy move: (1) it may help his bloc in the coming EU elections to be seen De Gaulle-ing the Brits; (2) he seized the initiative from Merkel, making himself the key player in the EU 27 Council; and (3) the delay is too short to allow the Tories to sort out Brexit, force May out, find a new leader, and hold a general election...but just long enough to allow a second referendum.
Of course, (3) may be wrong because it's entirely possible that, like De Gaulle, who twice vetoed UK membership in the old Common Market, he just may want them out as soon as possible. They're an impediment to the broader Franco-German project of creating an eventual United States of Europe, whose principle purposes would be to make Europe at least as important in world affairs as the US and China, while ending the centuries-old cycle of warfare that reached its apogee in WWII. But whether intentionally or not, he just may have left a referendum as the only option for May. One Tory Brexiteer complained to a reporter "Remain has won."
Good news: tomorrow afternoon the Commons takes off for its Easter break, not returning until April 23.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 11, 2019 12:59:45 GMT -5
Theresa May held a last session of Commons today before the Easter recess, and took the opportunity to remind her own hard-liners and the DUP that she had to request two extensions to Brexit because of their own intransigence, while arguing that she and Labour were much closer on issues such as a customs union with the EU than was obvious from the public posturing. Meanwhile, EU sources have told reporters she told other leaders to ignore the threats from Rees-Mogg and others to wreak havoc within the EU until the UK actually leaves--i.e., the Government will behave and the backbenchers won't have anything they can do. In other words, it looks as if she's getting closer to a point where she'll cut a deal with Corbyn to get this mess over with--preferably so they can pull out of the EU by the end of May--by jettisoning her own right wing. linkMeanwhile, my speculations about Macron's behavior have been borne out: (1) "Macron also fears the Brexit deadlock is poisoning the French European election campaign. France’s vote for the European parliament on 26 May will define the young centrist president’s legacy and his future if he runs for a second term. It is another existential standoff between Macron – a pro-European, self-styled defender of progressive politics – and Marine Le Pen, a far-right nationalist and Eurosceptic. Macron’s side, narrowly in the lead, is running a campaign warning against the dangers of Euroscepticism. That’s why Macron has been the most outspoken European leader in slamming what he called the 'lies' of the British leave camp." (2) "His grand plan to overhaul the EU, from the eurozone to Schengen, is already complicated enough to deliver – with little consensus in other capitals on a joint future project. Time is slipping away and a never-ending Brexit hogging the agenda would limit Macron’s ability to achieve any part of it." link As I noted, (3) may or may not of been a consideration for him.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 4, 2019 18:47:10 GMT -5
Following their party's losses in the local elections on Thursday, May and Corbyn both said it was necessary that they come together to pass a compromise Brexit; leadership MPs from both parties indicated that an arrangement to stay in the EC's Customs Union was likely to be part of a way forward. Yeah, right: "Last-ditch efforts by Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn to strike a compromise on Brexit looked doomed on Saturday as the party leaders faced mounting revolts from their own MPs and activists...The Observer can reveal that 104 opposition MPs, mainly from Labour but also SNP, Change UK, Green and Plaid Cymru, have written to May and Corbyn insisting they will not back a “Westminster stitch-up” unless there is a firm guarantee that any deal is then put to a confirmatory referendum...Separately, senior Tory MPs insisted that any deal struck with Labour that involved anything close to a customs union – Corbyn’s central demand in the talks – would be rejected by more than 100 of the party’s MPs, who would see it as a betrayal of May’s promises on Brexit." linkBy now it should be crystal clear that a majority in the House opposes Brexit; no form of it ever has captured a majority, even in non-binding indicative votes. But more important, these MPs are emboldened by polls showing that Brexit no longer commands a majority among voters. "The MPs [who signed the letter] say: 'The very worst thing we could do at this time is a Westminster stitch-up whether over the PM’s deal or another deal. This risks alienating both those who voted leave in 2016 and those who voted remain.' They say that, 'whatever the deal' is, it must be the subject of another referendum so voters can have the 'final say'." Exactly! Even in Jacob Rees-Mogg's own constituency: Sarah Mitchell, a music teacher, had been fuming the whole day and, as she waited outside her daughter’s school in a pretty village nestled in the Mendip hills, seized the opportunity to get it off her chest. The reason for her ire? Claims that last week’s local election results showed that the electorate wanted the government to get on with Brexit. ' A lot of Conservatives have changed to the Lib Dems here because they want a second referendum, not because they want to push Brexit through faster,' she told the Observer on Friday, as the results from the previous day’s poll trickled in. 'What makes me mad is that we are not being listened to.' ” Exactly! And many Labour voters feel the same way about the split-the-difference approach that Corbyn is pushing (Brexit, but with a Customs Union +), which is why that party failed to capitalized on the Tories' collapse. This should be Politics 101.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 11, 2019 16:15:36 GMT -5
The Tory-Labour talks on Brexit appear to be going nowhere. Why not? Well, Labour's #2 leader explains: "The problem they have is that literally in front of us they will fall out. So the exercise here is holding themselves together. And that is proving impossible. The administration is falling apart...It's so precarious. We're dealing with an institution that might not be there in three weeks...We're in a position now where we're asking, 'How can we trust them to deliver – not just in the short-term, in the medium term as well?' " linkWhat's making for this "precarious" situation is simple: Tory leaders are jockeying for position in anticipation of May's forced early resignation, perhaps after the EU Parliament elections, in which some predict the party could finish in 6th place. If not then, soon because May has promised to step down as soon as her EU Withdrawal Agreement is passed. But it's not at all clear that it will pass, so the myriad candidates to replace her are more or less openly campaigning for the job of PM, to take office sooner rather than later. Failure to win on Brexit has cost May support, and her falling support has made it harder to pass Brexit--a perfect self-reinforcing downward spiral.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 21, 2019 15:09:45 GMT -5
Theresa May gave an unscheduled speech today in which she laid out a 10-point "new deal" to be announced formally in the House tomorrow: The big news here was her openness to a "confirmatory vote" or second referendum on the proposed deal. Up until now she has insisted that the voters decided to leave in 2016, so leave they must. The Guardian reports that she was prepared to go further, but was stopped by other Cabinet members: "According to a cabinet source, May had originally proposed offering a second referendum and a customs union as part of the withdrawal bill but had to ditch that idea after a major argument. The opposition was led by Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, and Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, followed by other cabinet ministers, amounting to a full-scale revolt." linkHer 10 points are designed to meet the specific objections of various non-Tory factions she needs to pass anything. For Labour, legislation to ensure labor and environmental rights keep up with the EU's (though only through this Parliament--she can't guarantee what a future government might do). For Lib-Dems and some Labourites, a second referendum to let the public approve the agreement or not. For the DUP and Brexit hardliners, statutory language committing Westminster to seek a way to avoid the "backstop" or, failing that, keeping the rest of the UK consistent with the rules applying to Northern Ireland. The reaction has been less than enthusiastic. A leading Labour compromiser "said she did not see how she could back the bill," and another prominent Labourite responded, "“The prime minister just made a whole load of promises on behalf of the next prime minister. That’s likely to be someone who has repeatedly voted against the very things she’s announcing. No thanks." Ominously, at least 23 Tories who supported her bill last time (when it lost by 58 votes) have come out against this revised proposal. link And EU officials said that this “bold offer” actually "consisted of a series of platitudes and the restatement of negotiating objectives that have already been rejected." In short, this too will fail. As May noted in her speech, delivering on Brexit has been “even harder than I anticipated...I have tried everything I possibly can to find a way through.” Yes, she's been diligent, but the real problem has never been lack of effort. It's been that the entire premise of Brexit was wrong: you really can't have your cake and eat it, too, as Boris Johnson promised. That is, you can't leave the EU, create new trade deals around the world on your own terms, and still keep the existing access to the EU market. That thinking is just so 19th Century it makes you want to write a letter that begins, "Dear Brexiters, the British Empire was dismantled between Clement Attlee's 1946 speech promising independence for India and the 1981 British Nationality Act, which redefined the last few Crown Colonies and Overseas Territories; the "I" was dotted with patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. You are not a world superpower any more. Get over it."
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 22, 2019 9:42:07 GMT -5
The split among Tory MPs over Brexit is now being reflected among their voting base on the eve of EU Parliament elections: "The Evening Standard, edited by the former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, has urged readers to consider voting Liberal Democrat in the European elections, in the latest sign of Cameron-era Conservatives breaking with the party over Brexit...Other prominent Conservatives have been punished by the party in recent days for endorsing the Lib Dems in the EU elections, including the former deputy prime minister Lord Heseltine...The Lib Dems are polling in second place behind the Brexit party ahead of EU elections on Thursday, with some voters who fled the party during the coalition years seemingly willing to give them another chance thanks to an unambigious anti-Brexit message." linkBasically, the Tories are losing large chunks of their hard-line Leave supporters to the Brexit Party and their committed Remainers to the Lib-Dems. As a result, they appear headed for their worst showing in a national election of any kind in history. Labour also is losing some voters to Brexit, but perhaps more to the Lib-Dems and the Greens as Remainers grow frustrated with their party's straddle. Both May and Corbyn are trying to hold together coalitions with widely disparate views on Europe by finding a formula that retains some link to the EU while disentangling from membership in its institutions. The problem is that this really is a binary decision: in or out. The Europeans have been trying to get the British to understand this for three years, but to no avail. While Labour voters overwhelmingly support Remain, enough are Leavers that the party can't win an election without their votes; the Conservatives have the same problem in reverse. The fact that the top two parties in the polls have a straightforward for or against position on Brexit simply shows that the issue is not one on which there can be a split-the-difference solution. Brexit is an existential issue for Britons: either we're just another European country, or we're not European. Traditionally, Briton has been the latter, which is why after 45 years they still haven't accepted the former.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 22, 2019 15:27:13 GMT -5
Well, today was all but the end for Theresa May. Her New and Improved Withdrawal Agreement angered so many Tory MPs that she's now scheduled to meet with the head of the backbench 1922 Committee on Friday to discuss when she will leave--and speculation is that it could be that day, next week, or after Trump's visit the following week. But as a practical matter MPs now are talking about her Prime Ministership in the past tense and lining up to select her successor, possibly Boris Johnson, likely one of the hard Brexiteers who want a no-deal exit.
Whether there are the votes for that is not clear, though it's likely many Remainer Tories will support a new government if that's the direction it wants to go. There's virtually no chance of negotiating a new, different deal with the EU. Without that, there's nothing on which to hang a "confirmatory" or second referendum, and a new Tory Cabinet never will allow that--after all that was the last straw that made them force May to leave before she was ready. So aside from no-deal the options are either a new election or withdrawal of Article 50, killing Brexit completely.
My guess is that a new PM will push for leaving without a deal before the new EU Parliament convenes in July, then call an election sometime later this year, as May did in 2017 after becoming PM. Under current law, they don't have to have an election until 2022, but there's a long tradition that when the PM changes mid-term there's a new election to give the government a renewed mandate.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 24, 2019 15:52:26 GMT -5
So, Theresa May finally recognized that she was a dead woman walking, as she has been for months, and gave up the ghost, announcing her resignation, effective June 10. A new leader will be chosen by July 31. Boris Johnson is considered the leader, but as many as 20 candidates may emerge. Initial voting among Tory MPs will narrow the field to two, at which point regular party members will vote on the final choice. Johnson announced in Switzerland today that the UK will leave the EU not later than October 31, with or without a deal. Other candidates are likely to echo that position, which could mean Brexit will happen, even though a majority of voters appear to oppose it at this point. David Cameron's self-centered decision to save his job by offering up the referendum will cost both the UK and EU, but mostly the UK, for decades to come. Stupidity's triumph.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 27, 2019 17:46:17 GMT -5
Labour lost 11 percentage points from its 2014 showing in the past week's EU Parliament elections, and lost 10 of its 20 seats. Many of its voters shifted to the Liberal-Democrats, who finished second in the UK, ahead of Labour, and the Greens, who had a great day across most of Europe. And so Jeremy Corbyn finally moved off his ridiculous position that Labour wanted to appeal equally to remainers and leavers (this defies the laws of political physics!) and finally adopted a less-ambiguous position of holding a second referendum. In a letter to his party's MPs he wrote: “It is clear that the deadlock in parliament can now only be broken by the issue going back to the people through a general election or a public vote. We are ready to support a public vote on any deal.” linkGeezus, JC, it's been "clear" to almost everyone that this is what's needed for months now. If it weren't that most of the Labour Shadow Cabinet are from the relatively few pro-Brexit Labour constituencies this might have been Labour's position long ago. And then they would not have been slammed in the EU elections because of their straddle, which has alienated many of their voters, who are overwhelmingly (80 percent or so) pro-remain. Sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 18, 2019 22:33:45 GMT -5
Time to catch up on Brexit-mania because of today's developments. Mostly the UK government has been treading water while waiting for the outcome of the poll of Conservative Party dues-paying members that will make Boris Johnson Prime Minister next week. Johnson keeps insisting that the UK will leave the EU on October 31, with or without an agreement. This has made a majority of MPs and Lords nervous because of the potential costs: just yesterday "the government’s independent forecasting body predicted a no-deal Brexit would plunge Britain into a recession that would shrink the economy by 2%, push unemployment above 5% and send house prices tumbling by around 10%. The Office for Budget Responsibility said the result would be a year-long downturn that would increase borrowing by £30bn a year." linkParliament has indicated on a number of votes that it will not approve leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement. So Johnson's been floating the idea of "proroguing" Parliament--i.e., sending them on extended leave--during the period leading up to October 31 so he can go forward with a no-deal exit in their absence. To prevent that, the House today added an amendment to a bill re-establishing an executive body in Northern Ireland that requires the Government to report to Parliament every two weeks on progress, and to allow debate on its reports. This makes it virtually impossible to prorogue Parliament, thwarting that plan. The vote was 315-274, a sound defeat for the Government. Some 16 Tories deserted their party to vote with the opposition, including one minister, who quit her position before casting her vote; four other ministers abstained, tantamount to quitting. All of this was designed to send a clear message to Johnson that if he tries to go forward with a no-deal Brexit he will face an insurrection in his own party. Johnson didn't help his cause when he gave an interview this week with a BBC journalist in which he was forced to admit that he did not know the contents of one of the provisions of the WTO's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. After asserting, twice, that he would rely on Article XXIV, Paragraph 5 (b) to continue trading with the EU on the same terms as now, he got tripped up over Paragraph 5 (c), which would make his plan virtually impossible without a deal with the EU. He's a dope.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 21, 2019 17:23:16 GMT -5
Boris Johnson is expected to be named winner of the poll of Tory dues-paying members (all 160,000 of them) on Tuesday, then go to Buckingham Palace on Wednesday to get Elizabeth II's imprimatur as Prime Minister. That done, on Thursday the whole Parliament will take off on an extended summer vacation until September. It will be a great relief to all, but Boris should enjoy it because things are likely to be rocky by the time everyone's back at Westminster.
That's because on Wednesday two key Cabinet ministers will resign and head to the backbenches, joining several others who've already left. John Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister), and David Gauke, Justice Secretary (A-G), both have said they cannot serve in a Johnson Cabinet because they refuse to back a no-deal Brexit on October 31 unless it's approved by a majority of the House, which repeatedly has voted against such an outcome. Other ministers also are expected to make the same move, including Defense Minister Tobias Ellwood--right in the midst of a military crisis with Iran. Johnson has claimed he can get a new deal that removes the Irish backstop before the deadline, but today Ireland's Deputy PM made clear that's not going to happen. So Johnson's no-deal threat is real.
But that's just a start. It turns out that Hammond, Gauke, and other Tories have been texting quietly of late with each other and members of the opposition Liberal Democrats, and it is possible that a number of Tories could leave the party to join the Libs. In addition, the Libs are expected to win a Tory seat in a by-election early next month. Currently, the Tories hold 312 seats, and are supported by 10 members of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party. That gives them 322 Government votes. But the opposition parties hold 319. Losing the by-election would reduce the Government's majority to 2, meaning any defections would lead to a hung House at best and most likely a minority government. At that point it'd be only a matter of (a very short) time before Johnson would be forced to call new elections, almost certainly costing the Tories seats, mostly to the benefit of the Lib-Dems.
This entire fiasco is on the shoulders of David Cameron and the Conservative Party, just as our own belongs to the weak leaders of the Republicans. Basically, the center-right parties in both countries--and others on the Continent--have collapsed and either succumbed to or been replaced by right-wing extremists. In retrospect, this will be seen as the almost-inevitable failure of Thatcher-Reagan economics, which for 40 years put the interests of capital over those of the rest of society, creating huge economic, social, and political imbalances that threaten the foundations of our democratic systems by empowering extremists. We saw this most explosively in the 1930s, following another era of excessive concentration of wealth, so we were warned it could happen again. And it seems that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 22, 2019 21:13:21 GMT -5
"Boris Johnson has been put on notice by rebel Conservatives that he will not survive long as prime minister unless he drops his no-deal Brexit agenda, as he stands on the brink of entering Downing Street...The rebels are prepared to give Johnson the summer to see if he can make headway towards coming to a fresh agreement with the EU that avoids no deal but will make their moves against him after that if he takes the government full tilt towards a no-deal Brexit. One former minister said a 'sizeable chunk' of the 42 Tories who voted against a no-deal Brexit last week were prepared to put their own careers on the line to stop Johnson pursuing that path – either through a legislative block on leaving the EU without a deal or a confidence vote if that proves impossible... "Labour have backed away from submitting a confidence motion in Johnson this week as they believe the Tory rebels are prepared to give him a chance, but there is a likelihood they will lay one in the weeks after parliament returns from recess. Then Conservative MPs against no deal will have to make a choice about whether to vote with the opposition against Johnson and risk triggering a general election that could put Jeremy Corbyn into No 10. If Johnson were to lose a confidence motion, some Conservative MPs are openly talking about the possibility of doing a deal with some Labour MPs to form a national unity government led by a respected figure such as the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, in order to secure a second referendum pitting remain against a deal." linkKeir Starmer would make an excellent PM, at least from what I've seen watching this nightmare play out over the past months. He's not only a expert on the intricacies of Brexit as responsible shadow cabinet official, but he invariable shows a level head and the ability to work across the House. So much better than Boris or Jeremy, one of whom has no principles and the other too many ideological ones. If Starmer became PM of a National Unity Government it would be the smartest thing the Brits have done in decades. I hope it happens before Boris the Menace and Comrade Jeremy wreck the whole country.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 23, 2019 16:25:56 GMT -5
"Boris Johnson’s election as Conservative leader has been greeted in Brussels with a rejection of the incoming British prime minister’s Brexit demands and an ominous warning by the newly appointed European commission president about the 'challenging times ahead'... in an indication of the political baggage that Johnson will bring into Downing Street, EU officials felt free to take potshots in the hours immediately before the announcement of his election by the Conservative party membership. One eastern European commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, likened Johnson’s 'unrealistic promises' to those of the former Russian president Boris Yeltsin, whose empty rhetoric was said to have ushered in the authoritarian rule of Vladimir Putin. The Lithuanian health commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, wrote in a blogpost published on the European commission website: 'It is a different Boris, of course, but there was something in the way of doing politics that was similar: many unrealistic promises, ignoring economic rationales and rational decisions." linkWelcome aboard, Boris. Now, instead of thwarting Theresa May at every turn you'll have to deliver...something. Here's what he's not going to deliver: Brexit with neither an Irish backstop nor a hard border, easy trade deals around the world, £350 a week for the National Health Service. Other than that, should be a piece of cake.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 27, 2019 16:56:44 GMT -5
"The former Tory chancellor Philip Hammond held private talks with Labour’s Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer shortly before Boris Johnson entered Downing Street last Wednesday, to plot cross-party moves aimed at preventing the new prime minister agreeing to a no-deal Brexit...It is understood that the former political opponents Hammond and Starmer agreed to work together through the summer recess with other leading parliamentarians who oppose no deal, including former Tory ministers Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve, to thrash out how best to use parliamentary votes to torpedo no deal...The plans being hatched include amending Brexit-related legislation that has to pass through parliament before the UK can leave the EU in a way that would force the Johnson to ask for a further extension to the UK’s membership if no Brexit agreement has been reached by early October. A 'last resort' option is for Hammond and other Tory Remainers to vote for a no-confidence motion in their own government if no deal still appears on the cards." linkThe House already has made it difficult, if not impossible, for Johnson to prorogue Parliament so that he can pull the UK out of the EU without them. Now it's likely he won't have the votes to do it with them, just as May didn't. So, it seems he's already started an early election campaign. Voters seem to be preparing for one, too. The Tories gained ground in the latest poll at the expense of the Brexit Party; that's no surprise, since Farage's previous EU election vehicle, UKIP, also did much worse in national elections, which voters take more seriously. Meanwhile, both Labour and the Lib-Dems are up a small bit, with the result that there's a virtual tie at the top between the two main parties (at 30 and 28 percent, respectively), with the L-Ds at 16, and Brexit 15 (down 7 points). A new election there may be, but it does not appear that will result in resolution of the Brexit issue.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 28, 2019 21:45:11 GMT -5
Boris Johnson’s ambitious domestic agenda would be crushed by the pressing needs of the emergency that would follow a no-deal Brexit, a new report by a Whitehall thinktank has concluded. The Institute for Government (IfG) warned there is 'no such thing as a managed no deal' and the hard Brexiters predictions of a 'clean break' from the EU will not materialise…Its publication comes just days after Johnson unveiled plans for a high-speed rail link between Manchester and Leeds, 20,000 new police officers and extra money for social care and schools [all while cutting taxes, btw]. The pledges appear designed to appeal to the public in an election, fuelling speculation that Johnson is preparing for one even though he is publicly ruling it out before Brexit happens. linkSigns of trouble already are cropping up: "'Rather than "turbo-charging" the economy, as Johnson has suggested, the government is more likely to be occupied with providing money and support to businesses and industries that have not prepared or are worst affected by a no-deal Brexit – as well as dealing with UK citizens in the EU, and EU citizens here, who have been similarly caught out,' it says...In another sign of the uncertainty Johnson faces, Vauxhall warned on Sunday that it will close its Ellesmere Port plant with the loss of 1,000 jobs if Brexit renders it unprofitable...A second report by the Confederation of British Industry out on Monday will say neither the UK nor the EU are ready for no deal." Indeed, the country itself may be at stake: "In its report on no deal, the IfG predicted that the union of the United Kingdom would come under 'unprecedented pressure' in the event of a no-deal Brexit, with Northern Ireland 'most acutely affected...Johnson may well find that having left one political union, he spends an increasing proportion of his time trying to keep another together,' it said...The new prime minister is also heading to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the coming days to promise to 'strengthen the union', but he faces a difficult meeting with Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, on Monday as she warned over the weekend that she cannot sign up to his no-deal Brexit strategy." Just as he promised (falsely) that Brexit would deliver £350m a week for the National Health Service, he's now pledging £300m to boost growth in those three "devolved" nations. link There is no chance this money ever will materialize. Not only is Johnson promising massive spending increases for all kinds of things, especially in England, and massive tax cuts, but he's also turning around his previous opposition to a formula that is supposed to send another £3,6B to Scotland each year--and all of this in the face of a projected decline of about 2 percent of GDP from Brexit. Like the NHS money, this is all just smoke and mirrors. Liars lie; it's what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 29, 2019 13:42:01 GMT -5
"The pound has slumped to a 28-month low as investors react with concern to the escalation of no-deal rhetoric by Boris Johnson’s government. Sterling dropped below $1.23 against the US dollar and fell sharply against the euro to below €1.10 on the international currency markets on Monday, as cabinet ministers ramped up their warnings over a no-deal Brexit." link
This is the Brilliance of Boris at work! If the UK crashes out of the EU on Oct. 31, a weak pound would make imports more expensive and exports cheaper, thus helping to mitigate any trade imbalance. Of course, the UK imports a lot of drugs and food from the EU, so British consumers would be able to afford less, but what the hell: a steady diet of mutton and mash got them through the War, so no doubt they'll be just fine without the fresh fruits and vegetables of the Mediterranean, and people are over-medicated, anyway. F***-it all!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 30, 2019 16:50:26 GMT -5
"The pound slumped to its weakest level in more than two years Tuesday. That's bad news for Britain. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has used his first days in office to double down on his threat to leave the European Union on October 31 "no matter what." Now, fears that Britain will leave the European Union without an agreement in place to protect trade have driven the pound to lows against the US dollar not seen since March 2017. The currency nearly broke below $1.21 on Tuesday before recovering slightly. At the Moneycorp exchange at London's Gatwick Airport, £1 is buying just $1."
Wow! Last time I used the pound it was worth about $1.50. Worse, since 2015 the pound has fallen from 1.44 euros to 1.09. This means that everything the Brits buy from the Euro Zone has become nearly 25 percent more expensive. All this is because of Brexit. Basically, they're impoverishing themselves because of some nationalist idiocy.
|
|