Economists and their models*

Classic shouty headline in the Observer:

Brexit costing Britain £500m a week and rising, says report 

Inevitably, this figure was set against the picture of the bus with the slogan about saving £350m which still sooo hurts

The costs were estimated by a thinktank the Centre for European Reform ('devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European but not uncritical.') and it is, of course, based on one of those predictive models that we all trust. You estimate future growth if we had been in the EU, and make it as generous as you like, then contrast it with present growth.  Present growth can still be actual positive growth, and is, but there is always a cost if you are an economist, of course. Work in a calculation of the extra borrowing required for Government spending to cover this cost and you get your figure. 

The CER website explains the techniques:

The CER’s synthetic UK is constructed using quarterly real GDP data and other economic indicators from the 22 advanced economies starting in the first quarter of 2009. The countries the program has selected include the US(whose growth rate makes up 50 per cent of that of the UK doppelgänger), Germany (28 per cent), Luxembourg (11 per cent), Iceland (10 per cent) and Greece (2 per cent)....The cost of Brexit is the difference between the doppelgänger’s growth and the UK’s real growth data...It is possible to work out how much extra borrowing the UK’s foregone output implies  [using the Government#s own data] ... The analysis found that 1 per cent of lost GDP resulted in £11 billion of extra borrowing. Since we have found that the cost so far is 2.5 per cent, that adds up to £26 billion additional borrowing (on an annualised basis). Our estimate shows there is no Brexit dividend: the Leave vote is now costing the Treasury £500 million a week....The UK has grown by 3.1 per cent over that period [since the referendum]. Compare that to the average of the 22 most advanced economies: 5.2 per cent – which amounts to a 2.1 per cent gap, not far away from our estimate of the cost of Brexit

Now I don't want to do down a noble profession, so perhaps I should also include the ways the CER tested its model:

[First] We gave our doppelgänger UK a ‘fake’ referendum, which took place two years earlier, in 2014. This means that the program would find the countries that best matched the UK economy up to 2014,  and then project the synthetic UK forward from that date..the doppelgänger UK did not react to the referendum, which means that it is able to predict the future path of UK GDP accurately. [Second] We tested whether we can exclude certain countries that the computer program has selected from the doppelgänger – such as the US – and still get the same result....When we excluded each country in turn that made up the doppelgänger UK the results did not change much [from what I can see, 2%--3%,]  showing that our model is robust. 

It's not so much the model as the assumptions on which it is based, as ever. There is something odd about choosing 'advanced countries' rather than those in the EU. How could the relative success of the USA relate to the costs of Brexit except via a very abstract notion of global opportunity cost.  I don't suppose many readers will get that far into the model, though -- the headline will do, perhaps to inform one of those confident assertions you hear on current affairs TV shows. It's still the sting of the slogan on the bus and the imagined effect on voters that upsets the Observer.


 I also doubt if the analysis will carry much weight with the public who don't even read the Observer. What is GDP after all, to them? What is the opportunity cost to them of missing out 2% of growth of this mysterious category? It is the image of society you hold that counts. If GDP includes a large element of all the ludicrous bonuses, salaries and expenses of the very rich and the wealth they own, does it matter much if that only grows by 3%? By the time any of it might have trickled down it probably makes little difference --how much of the lost 2%--3%. would have appeared in the form of Universal Benefit?

Modern economists just work with abstractions, of course. I'm slightly surprised they didn't break down their figure and make it more useful by estimating the cost for the 'average citizen' or 'wage-earner'.

Meanwhile, there is a good analytic article on the assumptions behind estimates of lost productivity in the superb Briefings for Brexit blog. Another contributor examines the specific assumptions in the CER analysis and concludes:

...the majority of the 2.5% Brexit hit to GDP estimated by the CER was in fact a normal cyclical downturn in the UK economy. This occurred when other major countries, including the USA were experiencing accelerated growth. It is thus wrong in our view to simply ascribe to Brexit difference in growth between the UK and other major economies.

 

EC -- the light may be about to dawn

The Graun reports the EC worrying about the UK political party conferences --and trying to influence them, no doubt in the name of the four freedoms and progressive identity politics.

[EU officials] thoroughly approve of Labour’s policy on negotiating a customs union with the EU, and have had this message passed on to the Labour leader..[But]...The EU’s executive senses danger, and it has started disregarding some diplomatic norms to try to mitigate against it....On hearing that Corbyn would be in town [Brussels]  and likely to visit Michel Barnier, the commission’s all-powerful secretary-general, Martin Selmayr, known as the “monster of Berlaymont” for his tactical nous and work ethic, let it be known he would like to talk to the Labour leader.

This is  controversial, it seems, but the EC doesn't like the Labour 'six tests' stance especially the one that says they will reject any deal that does not deliver the exact same benefits (apparently D Davis's promise) as membership.

When the Guardian broke news of the meeting, the commission’s spokesman told reporters there was no meeting of which he was aware. Weasel words that were swiftly shown to be so. The meeting took place... Corbyn was told that his stance made a no-deal Brexit more likely than not, sources in Brussels disclosed.

EC officials lecturing British opposition politicians!  I'd love to know what Corbyn said back. Anyway:

Barnier and his deputy, Sabine Weyand, told Corbyn they believed they might be close to finding agreement with May, but everyone needed to act calmly and responsibly if the withdrawal agreement was to get through parliament. Senior figures in the commission believe Labour could play a key role in de-dramatising the issue of the Irish border. It is likely to have been an unwelcome lecture that exposed just how worried the Eurocrats are, even before the Tories have started their caterwauling in Birmingham.

The master politicians of the EC might not be that well-informed about the Tories either:

They have no understanding of the political fissures and rivulets that run through the Conservative party, little understanding of the Downing Street strategy, and have almost completely given up on trying to work with May in a coordinated way to stage-manage a result....Some say they just hope the Conservatives can have a “sensible, rational discussion” in which they accept that keeping Northern Ireland in the EU’s customs territory is the only solution for avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland, and come to realise that the EU is offering a trade deal like no other. The coming days and weeks are likely to prove a considerable disappointment.

Meanwhile Gudrian stalwarts can take heart from a piece by J Freedland of the Uradniag that rings all the old bells. It is about an alleged epidemic of 'toxic masculinity', focused mainly on the displays of outraged amour propre byJudge Kavanaugh at the Senate hearings into allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman 36 years ago. Trump himself 'is the lead exponent', but others include:

Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte, whose response to the rape and killing of an Australian missionary in the town where he was once mayor was to say, “They raped her, they lined up. I was angry because … she was so beautiful, the mayor should have been first. What a waste.”...[and] Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary.

Seasoned observers will be waiting for the Brexit link, of course, and they are not disappointed:

In Britain, our own wannabe Trump is Boris Johnson who, when looking to take a cheap, rabble-rousing shot at Muslims, aimed his fire at Muslim women and their appearance.

Having done some amateur and second-hand psychology on toxic masculinity (a rehash of many earlier pieces), Freedland says: 'In Britain, the form is milder but the macho mindset is similar. Note the Brexiteers who believe the UK could walk away from its legal obligations to the EU.'

Dad's back

Traffic jams are predicted for 14 days after Brexit, says the Gurdnia,continuing the useful work to make no-deal look like Armageddon, just as the EC wants:

there could be chaos until the middle of April if there was a no-deal exit from the EU on 29 March...“We currently estimate it will take up to 14 days to initially bring the M20 junction 8 to 9 temporary solution into action, once the decision to activate it has been taken,” said Highways England.

Whatever shall we do (apart from demand we Remain)? Well how about being sensible:

Paul Carter, the leader of Kent county council, said he had been assured by the government that it would not take as long as a fortnight, adding that the government should avoid delays at all costs or have Operation Brock in place before 29 March just in case it was needed.

It is increasingly difficult even for me to read this stuff for academic reasons, so I am not surprised to find, tucked away in the Graun 

'Brexit fatigue' leaves British businesses unprepared for no deal

BCC survey finds many firms have ‘switched off’ from UK’s imminent EU departure

Some SMEs  '"have switched off from the process because they don’t believe they will be affected”, despite the Grudnina's best efforts:

Businesses that export to the EU will require a suite of changes in their operations, including knowledge of tariffs, rules of origin definitions and the demands of filling in 54 boxes of information for customs declarations forms required for each consignment...[and,repeating the scary stuffrom theNFU] if there is no deal there will be an effective trade embargo in exporting to Europe because of a new layer of certification the EU will have to supply for a “third country”.

Let's counter the effects of banging on and on with -- more banging on and on.

The Times also notes that:

A fractious electorate is already bored and keen to move on from Brexit, a feeling cleverly and successfully channelled by the Labour leadership at its conference this week. Troublingly, there is electoral mileage in the brilliantly spun myth of kindly Jeremy Corbyn [and the rather good policies to reform the economy a bit, but the Times columnist would not agree]

There is some mileage in another Times story too: ' Zeal has entered the souls of some of the Brexit gang and it has inspired an equal and opposite reaction in the second referendum crowd'. The zeal is fuelled by the flexible signifiers of class/identity politics as two tribes go to war? There is little appeal to the uncommitted majority?A familiar ideological way forward beckons:

The prime minister should take the lead by shamelessly borrowing some Churchill. Britain will be, in due course, “linked but not combined” with Europe, “interested and associated but not absorbed” as Churchill said in 1946 of the prospect of a united states of Europe. Then a little Thatcher: “Our destiny is in Europe” as that famous Europhile said in Bruges in 1988....Dressed in the party colours, Mrs May should then yield to the pressure being exerted by her foreign, home and environment secretaries and concede that a Canada-style deal with the EU is a better alternative than no deal at all, should the Chequers plan be rejected.

This is the approach known to students of ideology as 'dad's back!' -- relax, I know I've ignored your concerns for a bit but I'm back now to take charge. I'll stop all the petty squabbling and all will be good again.

Squeezing Brexit in at the UN

To international affairs this time. The main thrust of hte Graun article is about the debate at the UN, especially over Trump's sanctions against nations trading with Iran. But the headline takes a different view: 

Thanks to Brexit, the British voice counts for less at the UN

The Graun worried about 'the British voice'? It seem so, although it doesn't usually wave the Union Flag. Everything changes if there is a chance to rebuke Brexit, of course. What is the anti-Brexit thrust?

But in truth, the British voice on everything else at the UN counts for less than it did under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown – or even David Cameron...if May has any foreign policy theme, it is submerged by Brexit...

What is the crucial evidence for this?

Broadcasters accompanying her to New York were each allocated four questions – and each confined themselves to Brexit – as if Iran, the UK’s aid budget, Myanmar, Yemen or even the UK military bombing of Syria were non-issues...Such monomania leaves the impression that the UK is a country apart, involved in its own conversation, and checked out from the world debates.

But doesn't that tell us something about the broadcasters rather than the UK?

That is not a true picture of British diplomatic effectiveness at the UN – but sometimes impressions become the reality

Heaven forfend that the Guardina should do anything to rectify these impressions! The British imperial lion will be even more muted in the future, an affront to all patriotic Guradnia readers everywhere, and a condemnation of Brexit that even Daily Mail readers would surely greet with sympathy.

Even if all goes to plan with Brexit, next year’s general assembly will be just as hard...For the first time in decades, Britain will find itself as a non European Union member, forced to justify its claim to be one of the five permanent members of the UN security council – and British leaders (whoever they may be) will have to work even harder just to be heard.

The effects of no deal on brown meat

...could be disastrous, warns the National Farmers' Union (NFU)  in today's Guranida. Brown and grey meat refers to all the offal and other stuff the Europeans like, apparently. British diners are 'too fussy' to eat this stuff, so we send lots of it to Europe.

The story says

the UK faces a six-month wait to be certified as an approved third-country supplier....The NFU says it has been told informally that although Britain is in complete regulatory alignment with the EU, if there is no deal, the same health checks countries such as China and the US undergo will apply to UK suppliers.'. 

The checks will be undertaken by British bodies, subject to EU checking. 6000 meat-processing establishments will have to be checked, and the checks will extend to exports of 'bottled water, honey, jam, dairy and other fresh foods.'

The source of this 'advice' is not entirely clear, although UK and EU authorities have been consulted.

The NFU says it has established through its conversations that Defra already has huge teams working on a plan of action to audit farms and processing plants. However, legally they cannot submit that plan until 30 March 2019, when the UK has left the EU.

Each stage could take 3 months meaning a 6 month period of no exports to the EU. What on earth will the Europeans do without British offal? There should be no impediment really, of course, because UK farms are already aligned to EU regs, but it is a legal matter (ie to be decided by pedants). There is worse news, since Calais has no checking facilities, so exports will have to be rerouted to ports like Zeebrugge. I bet the citizens of Calais will be pleased.

Oh calamity. Let's call the whole thing off to protect UK offal!

Hang on though. British processing plants are already compliant so the checking shouldn't take too long should it? Why would the whole thing would have to be done all over again from scratch? Does the EU do this to all third countries that export agricultural produce to it? If there are 6000 plants in the UK,how many in other countries? It seems the EU imports agricultural materials from the USA, Brazil, Norway and China, the last two exporting fish. Close inspection of all these plants would be quite a task.

The EU might get nasty just with the UK. DEFRA 'could not “be certain of the EU response or timing” for an application. Without this “no deal could take place”.'. So it's a bargaining ploy again?

At least the British BLT sandwich is safe, it seems,after an old buffer appeared on Newsnight to warn us that Dutch and Spanish tomatoes would all go off waiting in the queues for imports at Dover:

The UK government has plans in place to keep imports up by allowing goods to enter without checks to Britain and with tariffs reduced to keep food inflation below 5%.

Maybe we should ban all EU imports of tomatoes until the UK has had the chance to inspect every greenhouse in Holland and every smallholding in Spain to make sure the tomatoes are grown according to British standards.Not to be nasty, petty or pedantic, you understand -- it's a legal matter.

Just in time fails to adapt

A literally unbelievable story in the Graun beefing up the threats of customs delays after a no -deal which 'could trigger massive queues of trucks at British borders from a vast increase in paperwork and checks to clear customs.'.Apparently: 'a tenth at [sic] UK firms said it would risk bankruptcy if goods were delayed by between 10 and 30 minutes at the border.' The source is a survey of firms by the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (CIPS). [actually a press release]

Then there is a whole list of scares:

Several major UK firms have warned of the risks from tougher border controls, including the retail chain Next, and carmakers such as Honda and Jaguar Land Rover who rely on thousands of parts arriving from the EU each day...JLR has cut staff working hours, while Honda has said a no-deal Brexit could add 60,000 extra pieces of paperwork for imports and exports to the UK while costing the firm tens of millions of pounds....“It’s such a potential car crash,” said John Glen, economist at CIPS, adding: “Common sense has got to prevail. We need to have a two-year transition period and to get something sorted out during that. The idea of day-one no-deal is just crazy.”... Economists have warned tougher border controls, import tariffs and other barriers to trade in the event of no-deal Brexit would have severe consequences for the economy, with one consultancy estimating the cost at around £1bn per year  ....Researchers at Imperial College London estimate just two extra minutes of checks could more than triple the existing queues at ports, potentially leading to motorway tailbacks in Kent up to 29 miles long.

The penultimate link points to a report by a 'Europe-wide' consultancy group, writing in 2017, in the period of shock and horror after the Referendum when the Remainers just could not bel-eeeve it. One Project Fear warrior cites another and thus 'the facts' get established by repetition. 

Experienced readers will note the weasels,of course -- 'potential car crash', the crazy 'day-one no deal' with no transition and presumably no preparation either, the erection of Brexit as the sole cause for things like the JLR short working (customer rejection of diesel had no effect on sales?). The CEO of Next is not concerned that he will have to shut down, as even the Graun noted: 'Next is well-prepared for this eventuality and we have all the administrative, legal and IT framework in place to ensure that we are able to carry on running the business as we do now.' The Imperial College London estimate is just unbelievable too -- do not traffic jams frequently cause delays of more than two extra minutes? Could lorries not reschedule their trips, and maybe set out 2 minutes earlier anyway? The GRaun itself reminds us that delays are not entirely unknown:

There are precedents for disruption, including Operation Stack on the M20, which forced trucks to a standstill in 2015 amid tunnel fires and industrial action in Calais. Typically used for a few days each year, it had a lengthier impact three years ago when 7,000 trucks were stranded, taking 36 hours to work their way through...Some food products did not make it to market because they went off in the queue, while others arrived so late that there were late penalties. Rolls-Royce was forced to delay its production line when goods did not arrive in time.

These were unexpected delays probably, and pretty thorough deep disruption beyond customs checks. Expected delays can be met in the same way ordinary motorists meet them -- leave earlier or deliver later.  Can the Chartered Institute really not think of any simple solutions?

I want to just think about some of the claims that just in time production could not cope. Why not just advance your orders by a week? Do companies literally leave orders to the last minute?   As for the burden of extra paperwork -- is that a daily burden?

Dirty tricks or frank talking at last?

An item appeared last night in the Gruan that seriously pissed off  my Remainer friends,although I thought it was quite amusing (I still haven't come out on FB):

May's plan to give Stormont a backstop veto enrages EU envoys

UK insists on Northern Ireland assembly vote before Brexit border measures can come in

Naturally, the proposal was rejected tout court by the EC/EU, and one claim insists the proposal would be illegal under the Good Friday Agreement! Nothing more has appeared today, so perhaps it was all just a jab in the ribs nudging the case that the EC/EU has a democratic deficit? Maybe it was to counter the usual allegation that the UK has no proposals? That is why Remainer mates were so annoyed?

Meanwhile, overseas interest in Labour Party policy seems to have increased:
 
EU steps up plans for no-deal Brexit as Labour stance alarms capitals 

Fears in Europe that party’s goal of unseating PM could lead to chaos of ‘cliff-edge’ exit

Apparently, 'the [Labour] party’s plans are regarded as one of the substantial risks to the negotiations.' becasue they might vote down any deal with May.

A leaked document [clearly a dirty trick then] circulated among ambassadors in Brussels before Wednesday’s meeting warns of the prospect of Labour combining with rebel Tory MPs to kill off a deal....[Revealinbgly]...there is growing concern that Labour’s determination to unseat May could instead propel UK into a “cliff-edge” Brexit, throwing the continent into chaos [myemphasis]. [ANd,andevenmore revealingly]...the reality of a no-deal Brexit has also prompted the EU’s member states to go over the head of the European commission and assert their right to take a “political choices” on potential mini-deals with the UK to avoid the worst repercussions of such a scenario, including the grounding of flights between Britain and the EU.

However, France seems to be digging in its heels. The French Finance Minister said:

“I’m sorry to say it so callously: there is something more important for us than the future of the UK, and that’s the future of the EU,” he said. “Any decision that would give European citizens the feeling you can exit the EU and keep all the advantages would be suicidal, and we won’t make that decision.”

Do you mean that the future of the UK is NOT a priority? I thought the EC had our best interests at heart! Once more, UK citizens are being asked to Remain in order to keep Macron in power!

 

Brexit means the Parthenon marbles must go home!

After expensive soft fruit, blocks to Amazon deliveries and delays in getting pet passports, comes thislatest issue of the day in the Guradnia:

Brexit chisels away any right Britain had to the Parthenon marbles 

Apparently, the Greeks have renewed their demand for the repatriation of the marbles (once called the Elgin marbles, we are reminded, but keeping the name would support cultural colonialism).

The columnist (one R L Coslett ) freely admits that:

It is a subject of great controversy [for gaurdinanistas no doubt], but one that most Britons, especially those who are young and not of an imperialistic bent, struggle to care about. When polled in 2014 by YouGov, only 23% of British people wanted to keep them 

So where's the beef? One argument used to be that the marbles were better conserved in the British Museum, but Coslett wins one of the prizes for shoehorning Brexit into everything by saying: 'Can the British Museum really lay claim to being a museum for the world when the British government has jettisoned freedom of movement in its Brexit negotiations?'

An immigration policy somehow contradicts museums? Beats me -- but Coslett probably has people like me in mind when she says:

There are many people who regard my generation [I think she is 30] as snowflakes for wanting to decolonise education curriculums or objecting to certain statues on university campuses. But we are also a generation of remainers firmly internationalist in outlook [a clue here to my eternal dilemma about the passions inspired by Remain?] . For us, one of the greatest moral statements [probably a better clue]  our government could make to express regret for past colonialist behaviour would be to return the Parthenon marbles to their rightful owners. They won’t, of course. Conservatism is after all a commitment to old-fashioned, traditional values. In contrast, Jeremy Corbyn says that any Labour government led by him would return the marbles. He gets it. 

The finer sensibilities of her generation are on clear display, with her moral internationalism. She says 'would you accept a thief hoarding stolen goods on such a basis? This is a question of doing what is right'

That link recycles an earlier Graun piece written in the shock of the aftermath of the referendum, suggesting that returning the marbles might be part of a Brexit deal, or at least retain Europe's good will]. There is also this: 'Meanwhile, Britain can surely make do with plaster casts of the sculptures. The majority of visitors probably wouldn’t even notice, or care.' 

Oh, if only more of us were less philistine and could see the moral and internationalist case implied in mere appearances with the certainty of Coslett's generation. We would never have voted for Brexit in the first place.

Don't panic! Make money!

Rumours and counter-rumours today. Last night on ITV News, R Peston said he thought there would be another referendum offering a choice between no deal or Remain. This is clearly EC policy and it is a good move, so I panicked a bit. 

I still see no obvious political route to such a referendum, especially since Labour is still split, but it would make an excellent proposal, nice and clear, an easy binary option, with the EC making it clear that no deal would be a disaster (supported by most liberal media of course, and maybe most politicians and business folk).

R Behr of the Graun summarises the issues for Labour:

Jeremy Corbyn’s attitude towards Brexit is not mysterious. He was a critic of the EU before the referendum, declared himself a tepid supporter of membership during the campaign and showed not a flicker of sorrow at the result....Some of Corbyn’s oldest allies then made it clear that a plebiscite should exclude the option of remaining in the EU on current terms. [They include] Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite union, and John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor...Much of Labour’s difficulty flows from the problem of appealing both to the current, pro-EU supporter base and a different, target electorate in constituencies that voted leave...There is a noxious hauteur in telling people the thing they wanted is not what they really needed....

Behr says that Corbyn and his allies are acting out an old agenda where major institutions developed to consolidate capitalist hegemony like the World Bank -- and the EU belongs in there. For the new generation,however, it is a different agenda: 'For many Labour people, Brexit was one of twin traumas in 2016, the other being Donald Trump’s election The most effective insurgency against the European status quo today is racist and nationalistic'

This is a good analysis. If only someone would deepen it and debate which of the two agendas is the most liberating, even whether the first explains the second. No chance of the Grudina doing this of course, and Behr has to  bang on and on. For him, this makes for some symmetry between Old Left and New Right. Both might oppose the EU, but so do lots of people. There is something deeper:

there is between them a cultural affinity [ah yes -- that old weasel] in the romantic fantasy of creative destruction; a similar quickening of the pulse at the prospect of the old order crumbling. Tory Brexit-pushers and Labour Brexit-enablers both have an ear for the music of breaking glass and a shared secret: their plans require things to get worse for most people before anything would get better.

Deepening his own panic,Behr adds:

But there is also a looming scenario in which the UK crashes out of the EU, causing chaos and misery, for which the Tories get all the blame. Labour then scoops up the votes of the immiserated. It isn’t a position that anyone around Corbyn will express out loud because it sounds brutal and cynical: no one will trumpet a plan of complicity with Conservative no-deal maniacs to engineer a crisis in the hope of capitalising on public pain.

Sounds a good plan to me. Meanwhile, May has apparently urged her Cabinet colleagues not to panic but to keep their nerve.

Business itself seems ready to take whatever opportunities it can. In a typical move, the Gurdiuan quotes the CEO of Next with suitable ambivalence. The headline says :

Next warns over Brexit risks as it reports strong summer sales 

But the subhead says :

 

Retailer’s shares rise by more than 8% as it says it is well prepared for no-deal EU exit 

 

Heads up for argument

There is a good blog with reasoned arguments, with no signs of racism, about Brexit form a pro position for a change here. The posts on Northern Ireland are good in pointing to a partly hidden agenda about Irish unity in Eire's demands to avoid 'psychological' damage and the EU's insistence on retaining powers over NI.

Stick and carrot

How might more people be persuaded to support a People's Vote? The Observer offers the usual alternatives  First, they might like to feel encouraged to think they are about to be supported by Labour in huge grass roots movement:a

The vast majority of Labour members are pro-European and in favour of reform of their party. Two years ago Corbyn pledged to empower them, in the glow of his second leadership victory. In Liverpool this week he will be under intense pressure to begin to deliver on that promise.

In a lead article, the Deputy Leader, T Watson says:

Labour must be ready to throw its full support behind another referendum on Brexit, its deputy leader Tom Watson says today, as a new poll shows 86% of party members want the British people to be given a final say on the UK’s future relationship with Europe.

Members are one thing but voters another .There have been YouGov polls for PV suggesting that Labour voters are also turning to Remain, as earlier blogs have  reported, but another report suggests some complications. The research by the Fabian Society might not be very accurate (although there is some debate about whether actual past voting behaviour is a better predictor than questions about future preferences:

First, we created seven groupings of parliamentary constituencies which reflected key components of Labour’s support base. We then analysed historical results in each of these clusters of seats to draw conclusions about how Labour’s support has changed. The Fabian Society then spent a ‘day in the life’ of six Labour voters, conducted throughout Autumn 2017.

According to the Observer, this research also revealed a

 “growing hostility” between Labour’s old and new core voters, creating a tension at the heart of the party, which has been riven by internal strife over its direction since 2015...The report warns that the tensions are so acute and unresolved that they risk costing the party the next election....Senior figures are concerned that enthusiastic support for a soft Brexit or a second referendum, demanded by many of its supporters, could alienate some working-class communities that have continued to back it.

In the most working class seats (mostly held by Labour), there has been  'a swing to the Conservatives of 3.6 percentage points since 2005.', 'but also 'a swing to Labour of 9.7 percentage points since 2005.' in urban seats,in this case in 'middle London'.

Meanwhile, back at Project Fear:

Theresa May is being warned by cabinet colleagues that a shift towards a harder Brexit will hasten the break-up of the UK, amid a renewed attempt by Brexiters to secure a clean split from the European Union.

This is a terrible prospect for those who uphold the sovereignty of the UK by wanting to merge it in an undemocratic EU, and is likened to 'a diplomatic calamity on the scale of the Suez crisis'. This analogy is provided by a 'major Tory donor', apparently. As usual though it all turns on some substantial 'ifs'. If the deal enshrines a border with NI, NI will be left '“in the departure lounge from the UK”. Cabinet sources are also warning that such a move would reignite the debate about Scotland’s place in the UK and further unravel the union.'

Given that May has repeatedly said she would never support a border with NI, the size of the if remains substantial,but any port in a storm to manage the difficulty of overturning a referendum by pretending something new is on offer: '“Nobody voted Brexit to break up the UK,” one minister said.'

Meanwhile, the Guardian/Observer continues to ignore or sideline any rival news. Even the C4 News had an item on the formation of a new campaigning group LeaveMeansLeave, headed by D Davis, N Farage and K Hoey (Labour). There was a substantial rally in Bolton, and C4 News showed the queues to attend. They tried to make the whole thing into a joke with N Farage as the main jester, the same technique applied to B Johnson. All the Observer could mange ,however, was one paragraph:

On Saturday, Nigel Farage and David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, both took part in a rally in Bolton calling for May to “chuck Chequers”. Davis said: “If you think you can bully this country, you really should read some history books.”

The Observer also flies a kite in the form of an article advocating membership of EFTA/EEA as a last desperate way out. A fourth option on the People's Vote form?

Some arts are darker than others

A Giuadrina story today about a lobby group :

Best for Britain, which has partnered with the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate, says it has detailed street-level data of target voters in swing seats. Its volunteers for the We Want The Final Say campaign will target residents in those streets, in the hope of convincing them to contact their MP to back a vote on the final Brexit deal...the campaign said it would use online targeting to reach swing voters with videos and stories at least four times each. That would be followed by the delivery of half a million leaflets directly to the doors of swing voters, by volunteers linked to both groups. 

But hang on, isn't that dark artery? Online targeting? videos and stories? One can only hope the materials meet the Gurdina's high standards of fair practice and truth. Is this sort of activity governed by constraints on spending or do they only apply during actual official campaigns?

Meanwhile, Gurdina bangers on and on like J Freedland seem to be having some doubts:

We now need a people’s vote on Brexit. But don’t assume remain would win 

 

Freedland has been doing some thinking:

First, remainers tend to assume that the current chaos and craziness – including the humiliation of May at Salzburg – will put British voters off Brexit. But it could just as easily put voters off the EU. Plenty will like May’s tough talk at No 10, thinking it is those stubborn Europeans who are at fault, rather than our own leaders for demanding cake, unicorns and pipedreams. Who wants to be a member of a club that behaves like this anyway, they will cry. The current impasse could boost support for no deal, as more voters conclude that we should be “out and done with it”. According to YouGov polling conducted for the People’s Vote campaign, remain currently beats no deal by 57% to 43%: it’s a lead, but hardly insuperable. Given all the dire warnings about crashing out – no food on the shelves, no planes in the sky – that 43% favour it should give anti-Brexiteers serious pause.

There's the old problem of what question(s) to ask:

What if it’s Justine Greening’s call for a three-way choice between whatever deal is patched together, no deal and remain: how confident could we be that remain would win that? It is at least possible that no deal would be a lot of voters’ second preference and emerge the winner....I can imagine the arguments [against a binary choice between Chequers and Remain] , as leavers insist that the question of whether to leave was settled in 2016: now all that remains to be decided is how. 

And overall: 'A people’s vote won’t be the end of the war against Brexit – it will be the start of the biggest battle of all. '

Maybe the approved dark arts will save them? 

Irish question--gloves are off

Flushed with triumph after the EC/EU display of power politics, a Guardina article tries to twist the knife over the Irish border:

It begins with:

The most important lesson of the Brexit negotiation is that it is not a negotiation, and never has been. Blessed with superior size, wealth and power, the EU has been able to dictate the framework and substance of the talks, and has refused any deviation from its red lines...The EU 'will also not accept any possibility of border infrastructure in Ireland [but what is Ireland here -- the whole island?] which is anathema to Dublin [the continued existence of NI might be anathema to Dublin?]  and, according to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, [the link goes to a general page not to anything specific about violence]  presents a credible risk of sectarian violence.'

Although the EU has tried to be kind and 'dedramatise' the issue, 'no amount of diplomatic politesse can conceal Brexit’s reality: one part of the UK will be economically split from another.':

Theresa May effectively guaranteed this impasse last December, when she agreed the Irish backstop. The backstop guarantees, as a last resort, Northern Ireland’s alignment with Ireland on the customs union and single market to ensure the free flow of goods. Northern Ireland would be permitted to retain the single market just in goods because the Good Friday agreement depends on it. But no such exemptions would ever be open to the rest of the UK. Although the EU was too coy to admit it at the time, this always meant that the whole UK would have to commit to the prospect of staying in the full single market and customs union, or else concede the erection of trade barriers within its territory...[May] has instead wasted nine months denying she ever made it [agreement to the backstop]. It comes as little surprise that the EU has now taken the initiative where the UK refused.

Echoing the megalomania we have see before (eg with Barnier's announcement that the UK needs a new constitution):

The most problematic consequence of the EU’s proposals is one that Brussels is most loath to spell out. This is not simply about checking goods. If Northern Ireland permanently operates a different customs regime from the rest of the UK and implements EU tariffs, then Northern Ireland must be exempt from any future UK trade deals.

Continuing the realpolitik:

The EU, for its part, knows it holds all the cards and recognises the danger of giving ground. Its priority is to accommodate Dublin, not London. It also concludes that a government so determined to leave must believe it can look after itself. Brussels has no reason or incentive to make any better offer.
The government has never understood the Brexit process and therefore has always botched it. It expects the EU to treat the UK both as an equally powerful third country, and as a member state still deserving the EU’s protection. It is neither. And so in a battle of red lines, the UK will lose. That is the most brutal lesson of all.

Well,we all know where we stand then? No longer any need for any ideological cover -- we just need to submit to superior power. I think this 'brutal lesson' might well end in  increasing support for no deal

NB The author is one J Lis 'deputy director of the thinktank British Influence'. The wikipedia source says the thinktank 'was founded in 2012 to make the case for the European Union amid increasing calls for British withdrawal from the EU'

Circling the wagons

So the EU Summit has produced the apparently terminal rejection of Chequers. It all seemed to go well until the final meeting when D Tusk announced that Chequers 'simply will not work'.

What has been the ideological reaction? Strangely muted so far as positions are yet to be articulated. The internal politics have been the focus. May allies have been trying to rally round in advance of the Tory Conference next week, and there might be some grim defiance towards the EC, some of it based on a view that the EC/EU rejection was bluff and that a deal would be magically produced at the 11th hour.

One reaction,reported in teh Guarnida is interesting though:

However, Crabb went on to say that the way in which EU leaders had sought to “belittle” May in Salzburg had taken many in the Conservative party by surprise and had pushed people like him to a position where they felt “the quicker we’re out of this circus, the better”.

I think this sort of reaction was felt widely after Cameron's rebuff when he sought concession from the EC on immigration (2014?). There was talk of bluff then but he came away with very little in the end and that led to the Referendum. The GRaun also summarises the reactions of other newspapers:

“We can’t wait to shake ourselves free from the the two-bit mobsters who run the European Union,” says the [Sun]...the Daily Mail paints the prime minister in a more assertive light than other titles and reports that a “furious May” warned that she was ready to walk away from the EU without a deal after what the newspaper described as a “calculated Brussels snub”....[the Mirror says ] The UK is closer than ever to “crashing out” of the EU with no deal after the British leaders plans were “shattered”... The Times, which also says that May is facing a Tory revolt, reports that British officials were “blindsided” after Tusk dismissed the Chequers proposals as unworkable...The i splashes on “The Salzburg Disaster” - using the now-familiar image of May in red – as it describes the summit as turning “ugly”. It quotes the Hungarian leader, Viktor Orbán, saying that France and Germany want the UK to “suffer”...A “scathing” French president warned that Britain must climb down further if it wanted a deal, according to [the Telegraph]...The prime minister was “ambushed” in Salzburg, reports the Financial Times,...

A column in the Times, written by an admitted Brexiteer (what a refreshing change after the Guardian!) addresses some consequences for the image of the EU:

[with its] usual tin ear for the menacing mood music, the EU under the Austrian rotating presidency opted for expensive glitz in Salzburg this week, despite its leaders meeting amid an epic mess on migration, with eastern European states in open rebellion, and the second largest financial contributor to the club (Britain) sitting there forlorn like Rodgers and Hammerstein’s lonely goatherd...At root, the EU’s problem is clear. It is an overly ambitious and insecure organisation that feels the need to present itself rhetorically in quasi-imperial terms, as the dignified embodiment of European unity and values. In reality it is a recently patched-together trading bloc with no ability to defend itself and hardly any combined capacity on intelligence and security. Debilitatingly, it is now split in two geographically [the East-West split over immigration quotas] ...Ironically, all of this division and dispute stems from the predictable and predicted overreach of an organisation that was designed to foster European harmony. The fanatics got carried away with open borders and ultra-liberal nostrums rather than paying attention to the cultural concerns and anxieties of voters and nations.[but] ...None of this, I’m afraid, speaking as a Brexiteer, directly helps the UK in its quest to leave the EU. If anything, the profound split in the EU on migration and culture means that the 27 need something they can agree on, and for now that seems to involve punishing Britain for daring to leave.

The EC/EU might need some ideological effort itself to accompany its blatant power plays and bad moods lest it drive the baby out with the bathwater, just as it did with Cameron.

How to get a People's Vote

It is rare to find any actual politics in the banging on and on for a PV. I suspect a PV has symbolic connotations as well as being an outlet for desperation among those who cannot accept Brexit. Perhaps they consciously wish the EC to offer a poor deal first (see blog below).  It has always been difficult to make it look like a serious political possibility, though. So this Guardina article caught my interest,written by one Hugo Dixon, 'chair of InFacts and one of the founders of the People’s Vote campaign'.

There are 7 likely scenarios, Dixon claims, and he presents them in an authoritative list:

1. MPs amend a motion backing a deal, 2. MPs reject deal,3. MPs amend legislation 4. May backs people’s vote on her deal 5. MPs say no to “no deal”6. May backs referendum on “no deal” 7. Snap election

It is readily apparent there are not really 7 options, but that 4 of them depend on some majority of MPs suddenly deciding to agree on steps leading to a PV, including all those in the Labour Party. For option 1, for example:

Labour would have to back a people’s vote. It is edging in the right direction. About 20 Tory MPs would also need to break ranks. So far there are fewer than 10 – including people such as Dominic Grieve and Anna Soubry. But by the time the crunch vote happens, perhaps in the run-up to Christmas, their ranks could swell. 

Options 4 and 6 depend on May's support. The only hope there is that:

she used to be equally clear that there wouldn’t be a new election – and she called one last year. So she has form when it comes to U-turns. What’s more, it is not clear what better options the prime minister would have in such a situation. She doesn’t want to crash out of the EU without a deal, despite threatening to do so.

Dixon is optimistic about the splits:

After all, the number of fanatic Tory MPs who are genuinely happy to crash out of the EU may be only about 30...[May] may prefer to get the people to share responsibility for doing anything so crazy. 

It is all a bit weak and hopeful. What seems to drive it is not so much solid analysis as belief that opponents are crazy, fanatical, 'hopping mad' ,while 'what is on offer isn’t nearly as good as the deal we have got.'

As usual, proposals are really ideological, in the sense that they are designed to encourage and consolidate the Remainer hopefuls.

 

 

 

 

 

Splits in the ranks

The Guradina's lead website story is of discussion of Brexit at yesterday's meeting of EU leaders. Positions have been sketched throughout the last few days, mostly citing EC spokespersons, but this time the elected leaders have a chance to make their points. We were bound to get actual politics as a result, not theological neo-liberalism. As a the EC seems to have feared would get out, national politicians do not entirely agree:

Macron, who is fighting a rearguard action against the rise of populism in Europe, said blocking any attempt by the UK to pick and choose elements of EU membership had to be the priority in the dying days of the Brexit negotiations...[but]...A number of fellow EU leaders have conceded that compromise from both sides is needed to reach a deal both on avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and on the future framework of a trade deal...The nationalist prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, who has sparred with Macron over migration, told reporters he was getting close to building a majority of member states in opposition to “a camp of prime ministers” who believe the “British must suffer”. “I don’t like that approach at all,” he said.

More detail is then provided about those advocating compromise

I was expecting some ideological work to mark the readers' cards as to which side el Gurinada might support. There was a handsome photograph of Macron, and Orban probably has already been labelled sufficiently as a right-wing neo-Nazi. Even so, the argument that this is all about economics or lofty principles of freedom seems to have slipped a bit -- we should accept a poor deal to support Macron's crusade against populist rivals?

The chosen Urdinaga ideological thrust, however, is still to bang on about a new referendum:

Earlier, the Czech prime minister, Andrej Babiš, said he would like to see Britain hold a second referendum on membership of the EU – even though May pointedly told EU leaders that one was not on the table...May specifically ruled out a second vote in her comments at dinner. But Babis told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We hope that finally we will reach a deal but I am very unhappy that the UK is leaving, so it would be better maybe to make another referendum and maybe the people in the meantime could change their view.

I suspect Babis was using terms that are probably a bit frank for the banging on and on bit. It's NOT another referendum, it's a PEOPLE'S VOTE, and there must be no suggestion that such a vote might assist the EC strategy of making life difficult until voters change their mind. The Grudnia really should have paraphrased there, and not directly quoted -- either a lapse or a remnant of journalistic values means they missed an ideological chance.

In a similar vein, there were remarks (on Newsnight I think) that May fears that if she says another vote is in the offing, the EC will suggest a bad deal so as to pursue their strategy, an argument which has been suppressed in liberal circles. No sooner had the argument finally reappeared, though, than up pops someone from the P Hammond Tendency to weaken it:

Complications over implementing Brexit were further highlighted by junior Treasury minister Mel Stride, who diverted from the prime minister’s position by appearing to suggest a second referendum could happen if parliament voted down the deal May negotiates with Brussels.

Useful idiots everywhere.