Brexit Deal Done

A new EU deal has been made today. Just goes to show what can be done with a determined, charismatic and charming leader who is prepared to delegate to competent people that he trusts.

I reckon this is all "classic Dom". Dominic Cummings has a pretty simple way of doing things. Figure out the strategy then stick to it, don't deviate and repeat the mantra ad nauseum. When questioned, repeat it again and keep doing that till your opponents believe you are serious.

"We are leaving by 31st October" is the new "Take back control".  This whole thing has Cummings' fingerprints all over it.

I imagine Cummings has known for a while that he would end up bouncing the DUP into accepting the deal or just doing it without their support.  

Cummings has little respect for any politician. Apparently he doesn't think much of Farage and I suspect he has little time for the DUP. At the end of the day he does not need to court popularity.

New LibDem revoke article 50 policy seems like a self-inflicted wound

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time but it seems to me that the new LibDem policy of revoking Article 50 is a self-inflicted wound.

From this point on, every interviewer will raise this when they talk to a senior LibDem.

The spokesperson will have to explain that the revoke policy only kicks in if the LibDems are in government. They will be forced to go on to point out that they have no chance of winning a general election. This will remind voters that by voting LibDem they are voting for the party whose realistic best hope is to come third.

The next question the interviewer will ask is whether the revoke policy would be a red line in the event that the LibDems are negotiating to be part of a coalition government.

The LibDem will then point out that they won't go into coalition with Corbyn or Johnson so the next question will be about whether that would apply if the Labour or Tory leader changed. Then we're back to the red line question.

If nothing else it will eat up the LibDem spokesperson's air time.

Arch Remainers will vote for the LibDems anyway. I really can't see how the revocation of Article 50 will help the LibDems woo many Labour or Tory Remainers. It's a step too far. Seems like student politics to me.

A vanilla Norway option would suit Boris just fine

The Telegraph are reporting tonight that Boris is considering plans for a regulatory border in the Irish Sea. Maybe this will end up being the deal he comes up with.

It's also reported that he's tearing up the restrictions on foreign students; letting them stay for two years after graduation.

Boris is also in favour of an amnesty for illegal migrants.

Any fair minded person would conclude that Boris's main concern in wanting to leave the EU was not  to end freedom of movement.

I think a vanilla Norway option would suit him just fine. In other words, leave the EU and join the EEA. Yes, the UK would be in the single market and freedom of movement would remain. On the plus side, the UK would be out of the customs union, out of the CAP and out of the CFP. It would also go a long way to solving the Irish backstop issue.

Personally, I think he could sell it to the public, especially if he combined it with making the benefits system more difficult for EU citizens to access. He could take steps without breaking any single market rules. One idea I came up with is to give all children National Insurance credits starting on their first day of secondary school. By the time they got to 18 they would have over 5 years of contributions. You'd then make the benefits system contingent on having 5 years worth of NI contributions or credits.

Whether it's even possible to join the EEA is the question. The UK never did give notice to leave it. Depending who you believe, that's because it wasn't necessary or someone in May's government thought they'd keep that door slightly ajar.

That general election could be a long time coming

Until recently, media commentators have been assuming that the next general election will be on Thursday 21 November or, perhaps, in early December.

That assumption is based on Corbyn stating that there will be an election after 31 October; once the EU departure date has been extended again.

On parliament's return from prorogation there will be a Johnson Queen's Speech which looks very likely to be voted down. There will then likely be a confidence vote in Johnson's government which is very likely to succeed.

Following a vote of no confidence which only requires a simple majority to pass, the FTPA (Fixed Term Parliament Act) then allows 14 days for an alternative government to be formed that can command the support of the House. If no such government can be formed, a general election follows.

Whether a new government can be formed is where it gets interesting. The third biggest party in parliament is the SNP with 35 seats. They're not concerned about a general election because, with the recent resignation of the popular Ruth Davidson, they think they'll do very well. On the other hand, Labour may be able to convince them to support a Corbyn administration with the promise of a Scottish independence referendum or the cancellation of Trident. It's not impossible to envisage them voting for a Corbyn government.

Next are the Lib Dems, currently with 17 seats but growing weekly it seems. They too are polling well and don't fear a general election. Swinson said that she wouldn't support a Corbyn led government. On the face of it, that seems unambiguous but circumstances change. The promise of a second referendum might persuade them. If all they needed to do was abstain on a Corbyn Queen's Speech this would suit them even better. They could argue that this didn't constitute active support. However, the numbers are so tight that it's doubtful that abstaining would be sufficient.

What I believe is very unlikely is that Corbyn would allow another Labour MP to be prime minister. Swinson touted the idea of Ken Clarke being caretaker PM. I suppose that's possible but I really don't see Corbyn going for that idea. It really is for the leader of the official opposition to try to form a government.

Any new government needs 320 votes for a majority. Labour (247), the SNP (35), the Lib Dems (17), Plaid (4) and the single Green total 304. That is tantalisingly close.

The 32 Independent MPs outnumber the Lib Dems. These are mostly Tories who have had the whip withdrawn. This group could be key.

Most of these Independent MPs would not support a Corbyn government that was trying to implement the full list of Labour's policies. On the other hand, they would not support a Johnson government either. In this respect they fall into the same camp as the Lib Dems but many are not keen on the idea of a general election because they fear losing their seats. Some of this group might be persuaded to abstain in order to allow for a Corbyn government.

Therefore it seems perfectly conceivable that we could have a Corbyn led government. It would be unable to implement many of its policies and it would be inherently unstable. However, if it concentrated on Brexit-related matters it could probably survive long enough for a second referendum to be held. Such a referendum would undoubtedly lead to the UK remaining in the EU because it would pit a "Brexit in name only" deal against Remain.

Already some Labour MPs are talking about precisely this scenario; a second referendum followed by an election in Spring 2020.

This puts even more pressure on Boris Johnson to conclude Brexit by 31 October.

Another Brexit extension looks likely

I'm struck by the number of comment pieces pointing out the difficulty that the opposition parties and pro-Remain Tory MPs will have in winning a vote of no confidence against Boris and installing a new government.

I agree with this.Winning a no confidence vote looks far from impossible but coming up with an alternative prime minister who can win a vote of confidence is quite another thing. The reasoning is pretty well rehearsed; Corbyn thinks he should be the alternative prime minister but he doesn't have the numbers.

The alternative for the Remainers is to seize control of the order paper and pass legislation forcing Boris to ask the EU for another extension to the Brexit date.

This is what the commentators seem to skirt over.

However, to me this looks a perfectly likely scenario. It has already been done once, back on 4 April, when the bill passed by 1 vote and the EU Withdrawal Act 2019 subsequently became law.

Since then, the arithmetic in the Commons has got worse for the government so why shouldn't Yvette Cooper and her friends pull off the same trick again?  The Speaker will obviously assist again in getting it done. There don't seem to be any impediments.

Obviously it would be a huge humiliation for Boris to be forced to ask the EU for an extension and it would be a major boost for the Brexit Party.

The question is though, what can Boris do to avoid it? Proroguing parliament would be a last resort. How about just ignoring any new Act?

The provisions of the previous Act were never tested because Theresa May decided she wanted an extension. As such, it's unclear if the Act managed to achieve its objectives.

However, presumably a future Bill has already been drafted, ready for the return of parliament in September. This Bill will, one imagines, be drafted much more carefully and Boris would find himself in contempt of court should he ignore it.

The other option is that parliament simply revokes Article 50. While this sounds simple in theory, I imagine many MPs would hesitate to vote for something that blatantly cancels the referendum result. Revoking Article 50 might, however, be incorporated into a new Bill forcing the government to ask for an extension. It could be made the consequence of the government refusing to ask for such an extension. I can imagine a lot of Remainer MPs voting for that.

Boris doesn't necessarily need a pact with the Brexit party

Following the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election there's a lot of comment about how Boris Johnson needs to have a pact with the Brexit party.

However, he's said that there's no chance of this and I expect the reason is that he and his strategists realise that it probably won't be necessary.

The opinion polls have changed markedly from the last election where the Tories and Labour got over 84% of the vote between them.

Under Theresa May we saw the birth of the Brexit party and the resurgence of the Lib Dems.

The Brexit party largely took votes from the Tories and the Lib Dems from Labour. Some polls were showing the four largest parties each polling in the region of 20% - 25%.

Since then, we've had a Boris bounce and as a result, Electoral Calculus shows the following vote share and seats. The Tories end up 15 seats short of a majority:

Party	Percentage	Seats
Conservative	29.7	311
Labour	25.4	224
Lib Dem	18.2	43
Brexit	14.6	0
Green	5.1	1
UKIP	0.8	0

However, because of the vagaries of First Past the Post, the Tories only need to rise a couple of percentage points for them to end up with a majority of 12. Note I've increased the share of both the  Brexit party and the Lib Dems compared with the figures above:

Party	Percentage	Seats
Conservative	32	331
Labour	25	210
Lib Dem	20	46
Brexit	17	7
Green	5	1
UKIP	1	0

If Boris could take just 3% extra from the Brexit party, he ends up with a majority of 82 and the Brexit party are wiped out in terms of seats:

Party	Percentage	Seats
Conservative	35	366
Labour	25	187
Lib Dem	20	41
Brexit	14	0
Green	5	1
UKIP	1	0

I imagine the strategy is, therefore, to do enough to take a few points from the Brexit party in order to reach that magic 35% figure and hope that the Lib Dems and Labour continue to split the broadly Remain vote such that Labour stay on 25%.

Some recent polls are already showing the Tories on 35%. Boris just needs to firm up that figure and hope that Labour and the Lib Dems continue to split their 45%. The Brexit party can keep their 14% with no need for any pact.

Ironically, the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election probably served to make some Brexit party voters think twice about voting for them in a general election for fear of handing the result to a Remain party.

Don't kid yourself, May's deal will get through

Ever since Theresa May came up with her permanent backstop, standstill EU Withdrawal Agreement, I've been wondering what on earth her game plan was.

What on earth was she thinking?

Surely, I thought, she must know that her proposal would never make it through parliament. For one thing, the DLP would never agree to it. Labour was committed to voting against it. The Tory Brexiteers were obviously dead against it and even Tory Remainers like Jo Johnson thought it was capitulation.

I've come up with a few theories and I think I've settled on one.

Misjudgement

My first theory was that she may have genuinely thought it was a reasonable deal and simply misjudged just how negative the reaction would be. Perhaps, I thought, the Maybot's code was on a read only chip and couldn't be reprogrammed.

For one thing, she clearly stopped listening to anyone much except Olly Robins quite some time ago. Add to this that she has always viewed Brexit through the eyes of a Remainer. This means that from day one it has been about damage limitation, not opportunity.

Influenced by her experience as Home Secretary and lack of imagination, she decided long ago that the Leave vote was all about reducing EU migration.

True to form, ever since the draft was published, she has continually tried to sell it to the masses on the basis of taking back control of our borders.

What the Heck

My second theory was that perhaps she'd decided that these Carthaginian terms were the best she could manage, time was running out and that she'd simply thought "What the heck" and gone for it anyway, knowing the chances of success were close to zero.

I tried, honestly

The more I thought about it, this shoulder shrugging nihilist approach didn't fit her personality and this evolved quickly into my third theory. Yes, she decided to go for it knowing it stood little chance of success but this was part of a necessary show.

The audience for this theatre was Barnier and the other leaders. She had to be seen to try her hardest and fail or she would get no concessions from the EU.

What concession was she looking for? That's pretty obvious I think. At a bare minimum there needs to be a get-out clause to the backstop. Who in their right mind signs a treaty with no means of escape? Even EU membership has Article 50 for heaven's sake.

What if no further concessions were forthcoming? That got me thinking back to what she apparently said to her back benchers after the disastrous general election. "I got us into this mess. I'll get us out of it".

Perhaps, I thought, if the EU wouldn't budge she'd sacrifice her leadership and let someone else have a go. A new PM would concentrate minds in Brussels, despite their bluster.

Through it goes

Then it dawned on me. All my previous theories were wrong because I had started from a false premise. May has game planned this thing. She knew the deal wouldn't get through the Commons as things stood but she also knew she would succeed with the help of, primarily, Labour MPs.

Ted Heath did the same thing in 1971 when he got the vote through for us to join the EEC. There's a fascinating Radio 4 programme about it by Ben Wright.

May's deal keeps us in the Customs Union, probably indefinitely. Only the European Court of Justice can let us out and they have no reason to do so. 

What is official Labour policy? Yup, indefinite membership of a customs union. Of course, Keir Starmer will say, he wants a customs union, one in which we get some kind of say, but everyone knows that this is wishful thinking.

Labour is therefore on the back foot, reduced to arguing about whether "customs union" should be preceded by the indefinite or definite article. Hardly worth dying in a ditch for.

Back in 1971, Heath, despite stating initially that there would be a three-line whip, allowed his MPs a free vote. This emboldened Labour MPs to rebel and it got through.

This time around the journey may be a little different but I suspect the destination will be the same. Perhaps on the first attempt both the Tories and Labour will be whipped and the government will lose.

Not so, however, when it is put to the Commons again. Corbyn or May or both will allow a free vote and May will have got her way. 

Turns out she can count after all.

Of course, in the days between the first and second attempt to get it through the Commons, the markets will dive, project fear will be ratcheted up to levels as yet unseen and this will give Labour MPs and Tory Remainer rebels the excuse they need to vote the deal through "in the national interest". 

The SNP could even join in the "country before party" humbug. The Lib Dems will fold like a pack of cards.

May then jumps or is pushed and any MP who was against the deal initially can happily blame her. 

She will have repaid the debt she owed the party for the disaster of the last election. She'll trot along to the Lords and from time to time she'll be invited onto the Today programme to pontificate.

She'll probably be replaced by a "unity" candidate; another Remainer in other words. Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid are the obvious front runners. Dominic Raab could be another option if the Brexiteers need someone who will wring their hands about how terrible the deal is.

All very depressing for a Brexiteer like myself.

The only realistic way out is if the Tories get rid of May before the vote goes through. I just don't see that the will is there though.

What I'm surprised by is how few commentators are saying the same as me. On the other hand, it doesn't make much of an ongoing story, does it?
@felixrandal

Woody Allen's best one liners

The Telegraph published 30 of Woody Allen's best one liners today, his 80th birthday.

I like these:

'There's an old joke . . . two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life.'

'Life is divided into the horrible and the miserable. That's the two categories. The horrible are like, I don't know, terminal cases, you know, and blind people, crippled. I don't know how they get through life. It's amazing to me. And the miserable is everyone else. So you should be thankful that you're miserable, because that's very lucky, to be miserable.'

'My one regret in life is that I am not someone else.'

Probably my favourite:
'I’m very proud of my gold pocket watch. My grandfather, on his deathbed, sold me this watch.'