Boris Johnson anointed his cabinet yesterday, clearing out half of what was already there. I could say a lot about this – Patel as Home Secretary and Raab as FCO are both truly horrific appointments – but I’ll leave most of that to others. I’m more confused about what Johnson thinks he’s going to do now that ever, but that isn’t much of a surprise. He seems to have played himself into an even sharper corner – time will tell.
What I’d rather talk about is a myth doing the rounds about the backstop. I know, I know this is a boring topic that everyone is sick of. But hear me out: this really matters, since it is key to understanding a lot of what Johnson might be planning, and further, the fundamental mistakes that are still being made when discussing what options are available to the new prime minister.
The idea that the EU is going to drop the backstop refuses to die within UK commentary. The reasons commonly given are fear of no deal Brexit on the continent (way less than imagined – there is a lot of momentum for letting the Brits crash out and see what awaits them afterward), we can bribe the EU (they will not give Johnson something they wouldn’t have given May strictly for Euros; besides, they are in prime position to get cash out of the UK anyhow, without having to give anything up), that Johnson will agree a political declaration quickly with the EU, thereby negating the need for a backstop at all. The last one here is the most important to take apart.
Let’s say Johnson goes to an extreme and tells the EU that he wants Norway Plus. Ignore any problems he might have selling this inside his own party for a moment, let’s say he manages that for argument’s sake. The EU will still insist on a backstop. They have to. What happens if the UK changes its mind midway through negotiations? What if Mark Francois becomes PM and wants to do something totally different? The EU will insist on a backstop to the negotiations no matter what. Perhaps Johnson tries to get another form of backstop – we just remain in the EU until the negotiations are finished, say – but they put him in an even worse political situation.
If it’s the much more complicated (and likely) Canada style deal Johnson requests, the backstop becomes even more critical from an EU point of view. That would take years if not another decade to sort out. These aren’t opinions on my part here, they are just the facts. You can dislike the EU point of view all you like, but it is what it is. They aren’t bluffing.
Johnson needs to get a deal through parliament in the next couple of months. Otherwise, he faces a massive crisis. His party may well split. He could be forced into a general election that will very likely see him electorally slaughtered. Or he can call another referendum, which has all sorts of problems attached to it from Johnson’s perspective.
In other words, this could all come down to the backstop. Again.
Isn’t your unanswered question at the start about “what Johnson thinks he’s going to do now” key to the considerations about any agreement with the EU?
Johnson has clearly set himself up at odds with a sizeable group of MPs. You are right to think this is unsustainable, but is he looking to sustain his government? What I take from this is that Johnson has his sights on an early General Election. This may provide a pretext for deferring Halloween.
With Corbyn’s Labour Party seriously hobbled by Brexit vacillation and antisemitism and the Brexit Party, the target of these cabinet appointments, on the retreat, Johnson is quite well placed to secure a strong majority, even though the Tories may struggle to exceed 30% of the electorate.
I think that an election might be announced at the beginning of September.
Nick –
A referendum would take 6 or so months to set up. A general election would take weeks from start to finish. Martin above has got it about right – although refusing to nominate an EU commissioner militates against any post-31 October extension.
And listen to BJ’s podium speech outside No 10 again: it could form the basis of an election campaign – not just about Brexit. I doubt any firm decision will be taken about firing the starting gun for an election for at least a month, but who knows? The key point is that the ground is clearly being prepared for that possibility.
Apparently, according to Lord Newby who is something of a constitutional expert, it could be possible to have a referendum in as little as 8 weeks, but only if the referendum follows the exact same parameters as the 2017 referendum, because this would circumvent a lot of the parliamentary processes. I suspect it would also require there to be general assent in holding a referendum.
Johnson might find this is the only option if the polls turn against him, however the state of Labour is such that I doubt this is so much of a concern.to Tory strategists.
Well yes, if the Commons is agreed on something almost unanimously, and the Lords doesn’t object too strenuously, then it is possible to pass emergency legislation in a day. We know this because it has been done.
So if the Commons were agreed that there should be a referendum, and what the question should be, and what the franchise should be, then it would take next to no time to set up.
But as all these things are matters on which there are bitter and entrenched divisions (and not even necessarily the same splits: there are Remainers who would want a second referendum but who would violently object to it having the same question as last time because they think that’s too likely to lead to another Leave win, so they want the question to be, for example, May’s hated deal vs Remain), six months sounds optimistic, frankly.
And that holds true even if the PM throws their entire weight behind it. There’s no way Boris Johnson could get the ERG to vote for a second referendum. No whip in the world could achieve that. So that’s at least one sizeable block of MPs who would use every possible means at their disposal — demanding votes on everything, backing wrecking amendments, etc etc — to slow things down. Of course if the PM were to back it they couldn’t hope to stop a second referendum. But they could damn well make the path to get there long and painful.
I disagree with little of that, m the argument I heard was that Johnson’s government could run out of options. The important caveat is that the option of a General Election would have to be ruled out. This depends on the polls and an assessment of the damage the Brexit Party is to the Conservatives and how far the Labour Party might be able to recover..If it continues to look as though the Tories would not have a majority and there is an impasse in Westminster, then rather than lose power, the ERG might reluctantly conclude that a referendum is their best chance of forcing Brexit through.
My own assess is that Johnson wants to go for an election as soon as possible.
If there’s an impasse at Westminster, then the UK leaves the EU on the 31st of October. That is the new default position. For that not to happen, something new must occur in Parliament.
Now the possibility of a no-confidence vote is off the table, I don’t see what Parliament can do to stop that happeneing on the 31st of October. It would require, I think, a majority of MPs to vote to take a day’s business away form the government (which has been tried before and failed) and then a majority to straight-out vote on the record against the referendum result (which has not been tried, and I think would be very unlikely to succeed: lots and lots of Labour MPs, for example, would I suspect mysteriously find themselves to have business in their constituencies that day).
Also, remember neither side really wants a referendum. It’s not anybody’s end goal. Obviously Leavers don’t want it; and Remainers just see it as a means to the end of Remaining (as the new Liberal Democrat leader confessed when questioned, they have no intention of respecting the result if it comes up Leave again). So nobody’s going to fight to the death for a referendum, and nobody has any real incentive to try to work out the difficult issues (like, what would the question be?).
I think Boris Johnson is planning to leave with no deal in October, and have a general election next spring. But my political predictions are often wrong.
I said six months or so on the basis that there could be some expediting cut and paste from the 2016 exercise. If I recall rightly, a while back the Institute for Government said it would take 8 or 9 months to set up. Eight weeks sounds a bit fanciful. But not quite as fanciful as the Greek bailout referendum of 2015: officially announced on 27 June and held on 5 July. I was surprised by the way the media, apparently, treated this political stunt with all due seriousness.
Whatever trade deal is done down the line, Britain will have to be aligned with the EU, not just to deal with the question of customs tariffs, but to maintain the integrity of the EU Single Market. That obviously restricts our ability to negotiate deals with other countries. We may not mind importing chlorinated chicken ourselves, but how to prevent it entering the EU without a border ? Do we have the technology to spot a dodgy burger in a passing van ?
It follows that the Backstop is not a temporary measure in case we can’t put a trade deal together, it is what the future trade deal WILL LOOK LIKE. This fundamental reality is still there even if we crash out, but we risk forcing the EU into putting up some kind of border infrastructure, with the associated security risks. Of course the only other solution is the reunification of Ireland, north and south.
I think the ERG know all this and they are quite happy to give away N.I. in order to fulfill the dreams of an independent trading Britain (minus Ulster).
Whatever trade deal is done down the line, Britain will have to be aligned with the EU, not just to deal with the question of customs tariffs, but to maintain the integrity of the EU Single Market
Rubbish. Canada has a trade deal with the EU but is not aligned with the single market. There is nothing about a trade deal which logically requires alignment.
A customs union requires some sort of alignment, but a trade deal and a customs union are very different things.
we risk forcing the EU into putting up some kind of border infrastructure, with the associated security risks
that is up to them. And ‘security risks’ only manifest if criminals decide to target the infrastructure, in which case they should be dealt with as criminals. We absolutely should not allow our policies to be dictated by fears of what criminals might do.
I think the ERG know all this and they are quite happy to give away N.I. in order to fulfill the dreams of an independent trading Britain (minus Ulster).
I firmly hope, and truly believe, you are wrong here. I don’t get the impression that the ERG regard Northern Ireland as ‘a price worth paying’; I get the impression that they are true unionists and wish to liberate Northern Ireland from the EU at the same time as the rest of the United Kingdom.
“that is up to them [the Irish govt/ EU]. And ‘security risks’ only manifest if criminals decide to target the infrastructure, in which case they should be dealt with as criminals. We absolutely should not allow our policies to be dictated by fears of what criminals might do.”
Couldn’t agree more. UK government policy in N. Ireland should not be dictated by political blackmailers and/or threats of violence.
Surreal. I guess you are pretty pissed that the GFA ever happened in the first place. You must have seen it as an appaling surrender to the men of violence. Far better to send the troops back in, have another 20 years of bloodshed. Anyone for a quick drink in Guildford or Birmingham ?
Really, really sensible approach.
Surreal. I guess you are pretty pissed that the GFA ever happened in the first place. You must have seen it as an appaling surrender to the men of violence. Far better to send the troops back in, have another 20 years of bloodshed. Anyone for a quick drink in Guildford or Birmingham ?
Really, really sensible approach.
Dear M, what your razor sharpe mind has failed to grasp is that Canada does not share a common land border with the EU. Consequently they don’t need to be aligned with the single market. Just explain, please, how we have a trade deal with the EU which does not align us with their regulations and tariffs and yet requires no border infrastructure at all.
Switzerland and Norway manage it, why can’t we? (I think we can get too hung up on ‘no border infrastructure at all. It’s a border between two different countries. There is inevitably going to be some infrastructure. That’s fine.)
Switzerland and Norway are heavily aligned with the common market and have to accept certain provisions of EU law.
Switzerland has a bilateral free movement agreement with the EU, for example and pays into the EU budget.
Coco the clown has gone for it
This is a declaration of war to the brexit party and labour
Aim is a general election without doubt
He will not get no deal past parliament
I give him credit he has already out flanked farage
What labour does next is critical hesitate and liberals will eat their vote
Corbyn must declare war on coco and be full fat remain not semi
Or the circus pitches tent for another 5 years and we become as his great grandfather s country was called the sick man of europe