Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: War breaks out in Conservative Party

Laura Kuenssberg
Political editor

Theresa May will front up in Brussels later - still the prime minister, still officially in charge.

One cabinet minister last night told me the whole challenge to her had been "futile", suggesting it hadn't really changed much. But it really has.

Mrs May has a temporary shield from another direct call for her departure from her own MPs. Angry Brexiteers can't try to move her out for another year in the same way.

That on its own is a sigh of relief certainly for her supporters, who were claiming a "good result" last night. But that does not remotely protect her from the brutal reality that she, right now, has no workable Brexit policy that can make it through the Commons.

Those who were pushing to force her out on Wednesday simply won't give up. Just watch their resistance as, and when, a modified compromise with the EU actually makes it to a Commons vote.

Right now there's no chance they will back her. And some of them might, just might, be willing to contemplate the nuclear option - to join with opposition MPs if they call for a vote of no confidence of the whole House of Commons.

War, not peace, has broken out. One government minister, Alistair Burt, tweeted: "They never, ever, stop. Votes against them, letters going in late - nothing matters to the ERG. After the apocalypse, all that will be left will be ants and Tory MPs complaining about Europe and their leader."

And in order to survive, the prime minister had to give up the possibility of taking her party into the next election.

When prime ministers do that - whether it was Tony Blair after the failed curry plot to get rid of him, or David Cameron's kitchen confessional where he stunned his colleagues by admitting he wouldn't seek a third term - what power they have starts to drain away. With Mrs May's authority already at a low ebb, what one of her loyal colleagues said would be a "little more time", got even harder.

She'll face the EU today to plead for more meaningful concessions. But there's no sign of the kind of transformation in her Brexit compromise that could transform her fortunes at home. The expectation right now is that at some point she will have to change tack on Brexit.

But how? When? Cabinet ministers were already privately pointing in two different directions on Wednesday - some talking of an increase in the chances of no deal, others hoping this could be a moment to pivot to a softer compromise that could attract Labour MPs.

Of course if we've learnt one thing about the prime minister in these two years, it's that she is not to be underestimated.

Her chances have been written off so many times, then assumption and expectation proved to be wrong. But don't mistake the fact that she's still in her job this morning for meaningful security for the government.

Because just when the prime minister truly needs to get her party together, its rival tribes might be now set on a course to pull her - and themselves - apart.

As has so often been the pattern for this premiership, Number 10 scales one summit only to find it's false, with a meaner one behind.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The DUP won't ever vote against the Tories in a vote of no confidence, because Corbyn is as staunch an Irish republican as you will ever find.

Corbyn isn't being shocking. He's being very clever. He's desperate for Brexit, but can't say so any more because the majority of his MPs aren't. So by being passive he gets what he wants, without fracturing his party. It's very deliberate. He just wants to inherit the post-Brexit country in 2022, ripe for his domestic reforms.

He has played his own personal ambition throughout, not his parties.
He has done nothing to protect the UK, just waited for it to all fall apart so he can then be leader.
If I were a Labour member Id be seething at his attitude and performance.

 

[Gutter Boy]

He has played his own personal ambition throughout, not his parties.
He has done nothing to protect the UK, just waited for it to all fall apart so he can then be leader.
If I were a Labour member Id be seething at his attitude and performance.

Not necessarily. Most Labour voters are leavers. And the technical Labour position permanently locks us into the most neo-liberal bits of the EU (the 'level playing field' elements of the customs union)

So Corbyn's position is pandering to the red tories in his party, while knowing that a cleaner break will actually give him the power to implement a more socialist brexit.

So he's working for the interests of his voters, against the Blairites in his party.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

He's working for himself.

 

[Parklaner81]

The DUP won't ever vote against the Tories in a vote of no confidence, because Corbyn is as staunch an Irish republican as you will ever find.

Corbyn isn't being shocking. He's being very clever. He's desperate for Brexit, but can't say so any more because the majority of his MPs aren't. So by being passive he gets what he wants, without fracturing his party. It's very deliberate. He just wants to inherit the post-Brexit country in 2022, ripe for his domestic reforms.

Are you sure about that? Because the way I'm seeing it, the chances of brexit being overturned altogether are growing, and the calls for another referendum have gained momentum since Corbyn/Labour softened on it.

 

[scaramanga]

Politically it is as impossible as GB's state owned controlled de-growth, its not an option.

The DUP might be an issue, but they've shown they'll do just about anything for a few £M. With them on board there's a majority for voting that through.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Are you sure about that? Because the way I'm seeing it, the chances of brexit being overturned altogether are growing, and the calls for another referendum have gained momentum since Corbyn/Labour softened on it.

That was forced on them by the party conference. They watered it down to as weak a commitment as they possibly could '4th option twice removed' etc.

 

[Parklaner81]

That was forced on them by the party conference. They watered it down to as weak a commitment as they possibly could '4th option twice removed' etc.

But the momentum is moving against the 'grand plan' that you seem to be suggesting he has. I don't necessarily disagree with the outline that you paint, I just feel that 'very clever' is a gross overstatement. He's blundering through. The momentum towards either BINO or another referendum is growing. Neither suit his purposes.

 

[r-u-s-x]

The DUP might be an issue, but they've shown they'll do just about anything for a few £M. With them on board there's a majority for voting that through.

Tories will not vote it through - there is a reason why they haven't got rid of the minimum wage / nhs /tax credits etc. they wont get voted in again. There is no appetite for your economic / social solution.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

German parliament opposes renegotiations


Jenny Hill

BBC Berlin correspondent

The German parliament has agreed to oppose reopening any negotiations on the Brexit deal.

A majority of MPs voted in favour of a motion which states that ‘it would be an illusion to hope that a rejection of the deal could lead to renegotiations'.

 

[scaramanga]

I like your faith in your own vision. And it is possible that the UK could turn around a hard Brexit...but only with significant time to restructure its economy (50 yrs according to Mogg) and there doesn't appear to be the vision or appetite for it. Maybe this would come when the reality of it occured. At the moment, not only don't most people see the oppotunity, no one on Leave's side can accurately articulate it. At least you gave it a punt.

There are plenty who can articulate this and have - the problem is that the media you read/watch/listen to don't report it that way. Try reading the Telegraph or the Spectator and you'll find plenty of articles doing the opposite of the ones you read - explaining the Leave side well whilst caricaturing the Remain side as unfounded nonsense.

The reality, of course, being that if you read both sides well enough you will see that both have good and bad points - with the truth lying in between.

If we tax EU imports, that makes everything more expensive for businesses and consumers.

No it doesn't. We can buy food far cheaper from elsewhere from countries that would be very happy not to have tariffs applied.

Food has already gone up quite a bit over the past couple of years. The Bank of England who have all the relavent data, who's job it is to calculate and understand UK economics, using some of the most respected economists, say food prices could rise by upto 10%. That's massive. People significanty poorer.

Food within the EU is already significantly overpriced due to the CET. Once we no longer have to apply that, most food will be cheaper. If we want premium, expensive, EU products then we choose to buy that - it will be more than offset by the reductions elsewhere.

Of course, in reality, the we will have a trade deal with the EU that reduces WTO terms. For all their bluster, the EU needs to continue trading with us and we with it. There's only ever one outcome to that situation, which is a trade deal.

Maybe longer term we could import food from Africa or other places, but we'd also need food safty checks and our own standards and customs agency infrastructure for that.

Now you're starting to sound like the EU. Most countries in Africa already export all over the world - they're not sitting in an isolationist bubble like the EU is.

And the reality is, Africa doesn't make cheese, wine, salami, not the sort we'd like to eat, and we'd still get most of our food from the EU.

Plenty of places do though. Again, increases in premium products will be more than offset by reductions in essentials.

Take clothing for instance. Most of what I wear is from Milan. There will probably be a premium on that after Brexit, but everyone who buy clothes made in Bangladesh or Taiwan (almost everyone) will see lower costs.

The one very simple fact we should keep in mind, all countries around the world trade most with their neighbours. Free trade with them is therefore optimal. Anything else is a work around, and suboptimal.

That is in decline. Global trade is on the increase and has been for some time now. People also don't trade most with their nearest neighbours when their nearest neighbours are in a closed shop that is hostile towards external trade.

You're alluding to keeping the finance industry in the UK presumably. What is brass plating?

It's putting an office in the EU in a low-tax country (Ireland would be most likely) through which all EU trade passes. I've spoken to a number of people working for large financial institutions (both professionally and personally) and all are fairly relaxed about doing so. Most don't want the arseache of having to do so, but none think it will significantly effect their business.

The one thing they're all adamant about is that they are not going to move to Europe. They will not be moving away from their ancillary services, they will not be moving their kids to European schools, they will not be working in a country where English isn't the first language.

I've never thought the cliff edge predictions to be accurate with the banking industry. Instead of a sudden exodous, I thought there would be a steady decline in London's prominance. We'd still have a powerful banking facility. A bit like Zuric. Zuric was the banking capital before London, but because Switzerland is outside the EU, Credit Swiss and many other banks have their HQs in London. If the UK is on the periphery it would makes sense for institutions to move into the centre again. And its not just logic, 650 jobs have already gone into the EU (the BoE more recently said "fewer than 5000 jobs had left"). That equates to millions in lost tax revenue, spending in the UK etc. We don't know if Brexit will even occur yet. If it does, especially a hard exit, it is a certainty that more jobs would follow imo. I'm not sure how you can rationalise any other scenerio.

Again, having spoken to the people that are part of the decision making process for this, they are not concerned. Their legal advice is that the EU may try to fight brass plating, but the ECJ will likely land on the side of it being legal, just as they did with their ruling that the EU cannot force Euro trading to be within the EU.

Don't forget, London was the world's main financial centre long before the EU. It has benefited from EU membership, but that only compounded all the other advantages London has.

Similar applies to car manufacturing. Sure in the short term we could prop up failing manufacturing (subsidising loss making enterprises as you suggest), longer term when they need to re-tool they'll shift production to Slovakia or wherever (Range Rover already did). Why wouldn't they? Why be depended on hand outs to be sustainable, when government could take them away and cripple their operation?

If it's cheaper to make cars in Slovakia then they should be made in Slovakia.

Import costs from the EU wouldn't be "massively reduced" how do you figure that? Under WTO they would increase in cost.

Again, assuming we will import from the EU. We will import from the cheapest supplier and export into the EU.

"Massively reduced labour cost" would require mass immigration (or mass unemployment). Can you really see any government sanctioning massive immigration? I would politely suggest this is a wish and prayer. It has no economic logic or sense. Imo.

Massively reduced labour costs are the natural outcome of not restricting immigration to a handful of countries. There are skilled workers all around the world who would work for a fraction of what EU workers will.

I hope you've felt I was 'decent' with my come back to you! I have keenly read all your missives. The fact that I don't accept them - take them on board - doesn't mean I don't apprecaite them or find them interesting. Maybe you'll come back on the points above and convince me I am wrong. I would love to be proved wrong and am open to it.

Thank you for taking the time to respond properly, it's appreciated.

But when the Bank of England makes such fervant projections as these:

Bank of England says no-deal Brexit would be worse than 2008 crisis
Bank warns of immediate economic crash, GDP to fall by 8%, unemployment to rise to 7.5%


...even with a margin for error (or hysteria) your projections are massively wide of most respected economists mark. I remain to be convinced.

Echo chamber.

Let's bear in mind those same people predicted all kinds of horrific nonsense the moment the referendum was complete. They also predicted the same when article 50 was submitted, etc. In fact, employment is at its highest rate ever, investment into the UK is strong (I've lost the exact figures, but I'm sure I read it's far higher than in the EU), and Sterling has pretty much settled at what many believed is its natural level.

 

[scaramanga]

Tories will not vote it through - there is a reason why they haven't got rid of the minimum wage / nhs /tax credits etc. they wont get voted in again. There is no appetite for your economic / social solution.

The reason is that Theresa May is not a conservative. She needs to be replaced by someone with an understanding of economics.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The reason is that Theresa May is not a conservative. She needs to be replaced by someone with an understanding of economics.

She's one nation, rather than post-Thatcherite neo-lib. But to me the pre-1979 type is actually the truer conservative.

 

[Gutter Boy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1073178985188732929

 

[StephenH]

He's working for himself.

They are mostly all working for themselves!
Corbyn just is not a leader he's a ditherer. I have nothing against May or Corbyn personally.
I find the tories totally abhorrent and self-serving, it feels like the country is being run by the members of a 1950's "gentlemens" club.
Labour in its current guise is unelectable and that's being kind.
Sad times.

Come back, Tony!

 

[r-u-s-x]

The reason is that Theresa May is not a conservative. She needs to be replaced by someone with an understanding of economics.

And Major and Thatcher? neither would go near what you are suggesting - the country will not allow it.

 

[StephenH]

The reason is that Theresa May is not a conservative.

Don't be ridiculous man, she lives in Berkshire!

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

He has played his own personal ambition throughout, not his parties.
He has done nothing to protect the UK, just waited for it to all fall apart so he can then be leader.
If I were a Labour member Id be seething at his attitude and performance.

What do you expect? He has no power, he is in opposition. A new wonder, opposition takes the blame for government incompetence, It's all Corbyn's fault. Really? He is under no obligation to release any detail. He is playing a smart game, by keeping his powder dry. If the Tories run out of ideas then they can call a general election and then Corbyn will be expected release his Brexit policies.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What do you expect? He has no power, he is in opposition. A new wonder, opposition takes the blame for government incompetence, It's all Corbyn's fault. Really? He is under no obligation to release any detail. He is playing a smart game, by keeping his powder dry. If the Tories run out of ideas then they can call a general election and then Corbyn will be expectewd release his Brexit policies.

I expect him to, well, oppose.

I dont blame him for the governments doing, but I do blame him for sitting back on his porch saying nothing so he can take over the dumpster fire that remains after all the fall out.

IMO, politics should be vocational. Not just Corbyn - but all politicians - should be in the role with a self made mandate to do the best for the country. Support the good things, oppose the bad.

Corbyn is playing his own personal agenda (not even, or only barely his parties), nothing more, and given the position he holds I think its shameful.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I expect him to, well, oppose.

I dont blame him for the governments doing, but I do blame him for sitting back on his porch saying nothing so he can take over the dumpster fire that remains after all the fall out.

IMO, politics should be vocational. Not just Corbyn - but all politicians - should be in the role with a self made mandate to do the best for the country. Support the good things, oppose the bad.

Corbyn is playing his own personal agenda (not even, or only barely his parties), nothing more, and given the position he holds I think its shameful.

Jeremy Corbyn is a great student of history, as Napoleon advised, "never interrupt an opponent when they are making a mistake." He is watching the Tories tear themselves apart and implode, which is very good for the left agenda. What did the Tories do, when Labour were doing the same thing in the eighties? No, Corbyn is doing the absolute best thing for the country, by allowing this shower of brick to sweep itself into the dustbin of history.