ScotNat good, Brexit bad

Another weird piece from S Jenkins in the GRun. I can only assume he is being driven by revenge fantasies. The contradictions are clear:

If I were a Scot, I would vote for independence tomorrow. I would want nothing more to do with the shambles of today’s Westminster parliament, which goes on holiday for a month during the worst political crisis in a generation [NB the EC is also on holiday and has been a full partner in the 'worst political crisis', of course]

The supreme civil right is that to self-government, and the inferior tier of a federation is entitled to claim it, not the superior one to permit. [Unless the inferior tier is the UK in a Euro Federation?]

support for independence has topped 52%, the same percentage that voted for Brexit across the UK in 2016.[ But  only one majority ois 'good' of course]...Sauce for the Brexit goose is sauce for the tartan gander [bnutnot viceversa]

Then some fair comment -- but again with implications that could easily be reversed and applied to the EU:

With the exception of Tony Blair’s partial devolution, London has simply ignored the progressive disintegration of the “first British empire”, the one that has embraced the British Isles since the Norman conquest and was cohered as a supposed United Kingdom in 1801. While France, Germany and Italy (if not Spain) have steadily assimilated their disparate provinces over time [is this good?] , the United Kingdom has done the opposite....London now faces precisely the dilemma that faced Gladstone [with Ireland]: whether to negotiate “independence-lite”, or face a further breakup of the UK, as in 1922.

 Referendum voters asked to decide on their nation’s destiny rarely look to personal gain or commercial advantage. England’s Brexit voters were concentrated in parts of Britain with most to lose from Brexit....voters are more concerned with national identity, pride, self-reliance and local accountability. [yes -- so why is one set of voters noble and the other misguided and selfish?]

If Johnson really does stick to no deal – or its bastard sibling, hard Brexit – he will drive Scotland to separation. Like it or not, this means borders. To the absurdity of inspection posts in Fermanagh and Tyrone will be added posts in Berwick and Carlisle.  

There is one sneaky additional proposal in there, though, in that Jenkins is proposing a deal which would give everything to ScotNats --more English cultural cringe?:

one that withdraws Scots MPs from Westminster and sees Scotland rejoin the EU, but keeps travel, currency and citizenship ties in place.

Maybe Jenkins is trying to reduce Brexit to absurdity? If so, why stop there? Let's here it for Shetland independence! Home Rule for the Hebrides!

Transitive hate -- Brexit>Johnson>Cummings

The Graud shifts its fire downstream a bit. First (and note this is the news section)

Rebel MPs are working on a plan to thwart Boris Johnson pursuing a no-deal Brexit on 31 October that involves forcing parliament to sit through the autumn recess, amid growing outrage about the power and influence of his controversial aide, Dominic Cummings....[and]...mounting urgency because of the hardline tactics of Cummings, who one Conservative insider described as running a “reign of terror” in No 10 aimed at achieving Brexit on 31 October at any cost....The ultimate aim would be to pass a bill forcing the government to request an extension to article 50 from Brussels.

Experts said it was a plausible plan for cross-party rebels to seize control of the order paper via motions for recess, which are called “periodic adjournment motions”. They are not normally amendable, but John Bercow, the Speaker of the Commons, caused major controversy in January when he defied this convention and allowed Tory MP Dominic Grieve to amend a similar motion

Must be serious if they vote to miss their party conference jollies. Let's prepare the ground with this:

alarm is mounting within No 10, among some special advisers and Tory MPs about the scale of Cummings’ influence and willingness to defy parliament....One Conservative insider said that Cummings had in effect demanded control over Johnson’s operation as his price for entering government and proceeded to sideline more moderate advisers, such as ex-City Hall stalwart Sir Eddie Lister, while installing a team of “true believers” in hard Brexit largely from the former Vote Leave campaign...The source described Cummings’ grip over No 10 as a “reign of terror”, with advisers petrified about keeping their jobs and being told they are expected to be working flat out to deliver Brexit come what may by the 31 October deadline....A Tory special adviser told the Guardian that Cummings was “absolutely running the show” and was even more ruthless and difficult to work with than Theresa May’s former advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill: “The level of terror is greater than Priti Patel would like to exert on the criminal classes....“Cummings is an unelected backroom adviser, and there’s a worry the PM is becoming just a front for his ideological plans.”

Of course, the Grun is an entirely balanced and objective newspaper that would never just treat the briefings of embittered Remainers as news, so it also has this:

Cummings does have some supporters, including one special adviser who worked under the last two administrations, who said: “Dom wants people who can do the job well, will actually deliver on the PM’s priorities and will give honest answers when there are problems. In the last government you could get fired simply because someone else was having a bad day.”

Elsewhere old boiling Kettle (who chips away rather than bangs on -- apologies to him) had a more nuanced (sic) piece:

Boris Johnson’s top adviser may be making all the headlines, but he’s not calling the shots on Brexit 

Right back to the original éminence grise in 17th century France, Père Joseph, and probably beyond, the mystique of the all-seeing adviser behind the throne has been a constant theme. But how well grounded is this in reality? What we do know is that those who work in the shadows are catnip to journalists who know less than they pretend about the workings of government....This sort of thing breeds resentment. Cummings already risks appearing – and being – the over-mighty subject of what is anyway a precarious and sectarian government.

Cummings does not control events. He is not Prospero, able to conjure up a tempest that delivers his enemies into his hands. He is having a good run, but he is helped by the most irresponsible parliamentary summer recess of modern times. Even now MPs should be aiming to get back to Westminster and hold the government to account before the planned return on 3 September. They should scrap this year’s party conferences too....The idea that he [Cummings]  pulls all the strings is lazy and wrong. The Brexit outcome depends on a tangled web of interests and influences beyond his control.

Then, remarkably for Kettle, the Owl of Minerva is allowed to circle above:

Think too about the economic and political pressures bearing in again on all the protagonists.  ...Britain will suffer most from no deal...[but]...A detailed survey in March by the Bertelsmann Foundation concluded that Ireland in particular will be very hard hit, as will northern France, Belgium and parts of the Netherlands....It is nevertheless possible that time-limiting the backstop in some way – five years is mentioned in some circles – and agreeing to negotiate the issues in the political declaration in good faith over an agreed timetable might, just might, make a difference.

This is very nearly an understanding of the confrontational strategy after all. Has Kettle stopped chipping at last?

Met worries about standards

The Graun's lead is a rehash of the Times article yesterday about whether 'Parliament' could stop no deal, pitting Grieve against Cummings. There are the usual textual shifters of course.

Grieve, a former attorney general... [Cummings quoted as saying] “I don’t think I am arrogant. I don’t know very much about very much. Mr Grieve … we’ll see what he’s right about.”

There is also an echo of an old Project Fear piece from a senior Met copper, 'Britain’s head of counter-terrorism', N. Basu:

Counter-terror chief raises ‘deep concerns’ as key crime-fighting tools will be lost

Basu thinks 'key crime-fighting tools would be lost and their replacements would not be as good.' That change from 'will' to 'would' implies that discussions are ongoing about replacement agreements, which Basu confirms, but he adds confidently "that any plausible change would be for the worse".

The three key measures are fast access to intelligence and data through the Schengen Information System II database, as well as passenger name records, and the ability to use European arrest warrants....[Astonishingly] there is no contingency planning for not being given passenger name records....“It would create an immediate risk that people could come to this country who were serious offenders, either wanted or still serial and serious offenders committing crimes in this country, and we would not know about it. It creates that risk....“With my police leadership hat on there would still be deep concern. There would be some damage to our safety. I can’t put a scale on that.”.

While he was there, Basu commented on Johnson. The Gudr puts it as :

Amid controversy about comments by Boris Johnson such as saying women who wore the burqa resembled “letterboxes” and using the racially offensive term “piccaninnies”, Basu said: “Every public figure who’s got a microphone and has got an opportunity to speak should take the opportunity to be bringing society together....“The most important thing everybody should be aiming for is a socially cohesive, inclusive society.”...Asked if he would allow someone to join the police if they had used such langage [sic], Basu said: “No, they wouldn’t be recruited into policing.”

Who introduced these 'comments' I wonder and why did a senior copper rise to the bait? Lovely to hear that the Met wants social inclusiveness though.That might help it overcome its own current PR problems with Operation Midland, where they believed a fantasist alleging widespread paedophilia and murder among senior Establishment figures, spent a lot of money on the investigations, and saw the case collapse with the fantasist jailed for 18 years for possessing indecent images and perverting (sic) the course of justice.

Guardian brings weekly good news of disruption and coups

There's a new weekly roundup of Brexit news frm the Gruna. Lovers of good news can even get it via email. Here's a bit of this week's:

Best of the rest

• Surge in EU citizens unfairly refused access to universal credit.
• Low-income Britons ‘more vulnerable to recession than in 2008’.
• Edinburgh festival performers refuse sterling payments due to Brexit.
• UK less able to cope with hard Brexit than it was in spring, say officials.
• UK manufacturing ‘suffocating’ as output slips to seven-year low.
• BMW boss urges Boris Johnson to abandon no-deal Brexit.
• Labour would be ‘off our rockers’ not to back remain in poll, says Thornberry.
• We’ll block trade deal if Brexit imperils open Irish border, say US politicians.
• Brexit causes UK car industry investment to crash to ‘pitiful’ £90m.
• No-deal Brexit would endanger rural life, says Welsh leader.

Meanwhile V Bogdanor offers some expert advice for coup organisers, with the cheerful headline:

MPs can still thwart Boris Johnson over no deal. Here’s how

 there are, in theory, five ways in which the Commons could act.

First, it could legislate to require the prime minister to seek a further extension. The EU27 would then have to decide by unanimity whether to grant it, and under what conditions. Second, it could legislate to prevent the government from leaving without a deal.But that would in effect repeal the act withdrawing Britain from the EU, since if the Commons were then to reject every deal put to it, the UK would remain in the EU ad infinitum.[I'd not realized that implication! It's not clear if he approves of that or not] ...Third, the Commons could legislate for a referendum before Brexit [Would there be time?] . Fourth, it could legislate to repeal the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act and reinstate the European Communities Act, in which case the UK would remain in the EU....Finally, the Commons could vote no confidence in the government. There might then be either an alternative government prepared to delay or prevent Brexit or a general election.

It turns out that each alternative actually has real problems, insuperable in normal conditions.

Of the five, all but the last require the Commons to take control of the legislative process. That could be achieved by the Commons agreeing to suspend standing order 14, which gives priority to government business. In April the Cooper-Letwin bill, which passed third reading by one vote, did precisely that, requiring Theresa May to seek an extension to the Brexit date to avoid a no-deal Brexit....But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. [That would be very popular!] But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended....The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.

a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn...there is a 14-day window in which to find an alternative government capable of securing the confidence of the Commons. A Corbyn government would be unlikely to secure that confidence. Conservatives, the DUP and Liberal Democrats would vote against it. Another possibility, however, would be a government of national unity to forestall Brexit, led perhaps by someone such as Yvette Cooper or Keir Starmer...[but the Queen] ...would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister. [And what on earth would the electorate think?]

The alternative is a general election, which would inevitably take on the character of a second referendum. The election would be called by the prime minister following the closure of the 14-day window. After dissolution there must be 25 working days before the election. So if a vote of no-confidence took place on 5 September it could be held on 17 October just in time for the new parliament to prevent a no-deal Brexit...The trouble is that dissolution need not follow immediately after the 14-day window closes. Under section 2 (7) of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act it is for the prime minister to recommend a suitable election date to the Queen. Only when he has done so is the date of dissolution determined. Were Johnson to delay the election date beyond 31 October he would be accused of acting unconstitutionally, but it would not be unlawful.

Then a damp squib to end:

The caretaker convention dictates that no alteration of policy should occur during the pre-election period. Suppose the Commons had clearly indicated that it was opposed to a no-deal Brexit. How should the convention then be interpreted? Constitutionally, there is no clear answer. The logic of democracy [!] suggests that the people should decide.

Very convenient that 'logic of democracy'. It permits backbenchers to take control of the order paper, even to impose a GNU which no-one has voted for, led by people who have not been elected even by a small group of party members.
 

Liberals just do not get tactical confrontation

S Jenkins is often a perceptive analyst and has written quite reasonably rational copy about Brexit, despite Remaining, at least until recently. His latest piece shows that he, as much as J Corbyn, have an aversion to any form of negotiation that isn't sitting round a table with a cup of tea being reasonable, and just do not understand confrontation

Johnson is blatantly campaigning  ...[but should really be] in Dublin, the city that holds the key to somehow resolving the Irish backstop and averting a no-deal Brexit.

OK first point is that Government officials probably are 'in Dublin', i.e. talking to Irish official and politicians backstage. To back that up, Johnson is quite rightly indulging in the other part of successful negotiation -- pursuing displays of power to moralise his side (and himself)  and issuing nonspecific threats.

Jenkins wants things kept nice and tidy as in the EC rulebook and will brook no exceptions:

Jeffrey Donaldson, chief whip of the Democratic Unionist party in Westminster, on whose goodwill Johnson wholly relies in the Commons, has dictated that “our bottom line is no hard border on the island of Ireland and no new border between Britain and Northern Ireland”. These are blatantly incompatible. You cannot both be in a customs union and outside it.

But there are already border-like differences between NI and the Republic -- different currency, different laws. People cheerfully travel and work across this 'border', we are told. The real block is EC protectionism and fears of widespread smuggling, already dealt with across many other borders. Varadkar and the EC have weaponised the issue by linking it with Good Friday, and the EC can brook no ambiguity. The current soft 'border' is not seen as dangerous, so why should any extension of it be? Do customs checks at ports have the same kind of symbolic significance and basic disruption that we are told haunts traffic barriers and armed border guards?

Jenkins knows this:

The only conceivable way through is some fudge to define “hard border” as somehow a soft one. [just as Good Friday did] It must still be a border, but at least some verbal compromise might kick the can down the road.

Who is against such a compromise? The UK, even under May, advocated this and said it would never impose a new hard border. Jenkins wants to ignore the role of the EC and do the easier thing --  kick Johnson and support the gallant Celts:

The compromise can come from only one quarter, Ireland’s prime minister, Leo Varadkar. Yet Johnson has not had the guts to meet him....Only Varadkar can reassure the 27 EU states that a transitional UK withdrawal agreement is feasible. He and Johnson must do a deal, and desperately soon.

Of course, the 27 EU states might want to urge Varadkar to make a deal too. The British and Irish Governments and the EU are no doubt exploring a deal away from the public gaze. Why should Jenkins suddenly get impressed by silly symbolism whereby Johnson must go to Dublin and the two leaders participate in one of those staged meetings for TV like Trump and Putin? This sort of show is also campaigning really.

Jenkins ends with a very old-fashioned conspiracy theory. Why does Parliament [somehow] not insist the two leaders meet?

Britain’s supposed leaders are currently in the grip of two followers of Leon Trotsky – namely Cummings and Jeremy Corbyn’s chief strategist Seumus Milne.

That confrontation might help concentrate EC minds is demonstrated in the Times today (subscription still required):

It is not just British jobs that are at risk from a no-deal Brexit. As the clock counts down to October 31, everyone from French fishermen to German car workers is hoping an agreement can be reached

Belgian officials admit that the government will have an uphill struggle to convince the country’s voters that the economic impact of no-deal is a price worth paying to preserve the principle of solidarity with Ireland and the integrity of the single market.

Of course, threats from one side bring forth threats from the other.In this case, France is threatening to ban UK fish exports. In an older case,the threat by Democrat US Congresspeople to block a trade deal with the USA if the Irish are cross was met with a declaration by Republican Congresspeople that they would help the UK in any way possible.

We shall see who the Owl of Minerva craps on first.

Guardian approves of Dark Arts for Remain*

No real surprises there, of course. Today's edition features a dubiously self-promoting piece by a Dark Artist; 'Ian Warren is director of the consultancy Election Data' Iif it were  Cambridge Analytica, the shock and horror would be clear, but this Artist supports Remain so it goes uncriticized. Much of it agrees with standard Graun writers' views of the poor dim emotional herd that voted for Leave and the need for more emotional appeals because that is all they can understand -- but this breaks some new ground The subheading says it all really:

Messages from on high are useless – we need simple emotional messages that move people and can be easily shared 

It illustrates perfectly the cultural politics of the petit-bourgeois by rebuking the elite first:

People get on with their lives without the Today programme. They’re not reading that 124-page report on no deal. They’re not watching when you take to the stage to deliver a speech to a packed room at a thinktank in Whitehall. Nobody’s watching except those you don’t need to persuade and who won’t be affected by the catastrophe your report outlines. So don’t be surprised when the majority of the electorate either don’t know what no deal means or, worse, think it’s going to be OK.... Delivering vertical messages from an elite source direct to individuals is no longer effective

But the usual contempt for popular politics is not far behind:

we are going to need to employ techniques that identify the target audiences we need to reach. More importantly, the message we carry needs to be less about clever debating points and more about identifying the emotional triggers that inspire people to carry the message for us. Words of two syllables at most. Messages of 10 words or fewer.

Then it gets downright manipulative:

I found that it is possible to identify the base emotional triggers that invoke and dictate our subsequent behaviours, including whether we vote and whom we vote for. Such emotions are often hardwired unconscious traits over which we have limited control. The next stage was to deploy techniques that sought to convert whatever progressive messages I could find into consumable chunks aimed specifically at exploiting those unconscious traits. 

I think we might know one example of his work, although he doesn't claim authorship:

“Bollocks to Brexit” from the Liberal Democrats was a promising retort, ironically called out as crude populism by some progressives. Actually, it was ruthlessly effective.

As usual, no evidence is provided for its ruthless effectiveness -- exposure? Number of posts on FB? Whatever their external political differences, the Dark Artists are united in their cultural targets and  ridiculous claims.

Brexit causes mass school failure

The Observer leads with this story.  Shouty headlines and weaker copy with the added spice of being based on a leak:

Secret report reveals government fear of schools chaos after no-deal Brexit 

Schools may have to close, exams could be disrupted and fresh food for pupils’ meals could run short because of panic buying with prices soaring by up to 20%, according to a secret Department for Education analysis of the risks of a no-deal Brexit obtained by the Observer...The five-page document – marked “Official Sensitive” and with the instruction “Do Not Circulate” – also raises the possibility of teacher absences caused by travel disruption, citing schools in Kent as particularly at risk...On the dangers of food shortages to schools, it suggests that informing the public of the risks could make matters even worse.

So the Observer promptly leaks it, of course. Lower down:

the document says: “In light of any food shortages or price increases we will communicate how schools can interpret the food menu standards flexibly. DfE may make exceptional payments – or submit a prepared bid to HM Treasury for additional funding. Worst case scenario estimate of the increased costs – £40 to £85m a year for schools in relation to free school meal provision based on price increases of 10-20%.”...Under a heading School Travel, the analysis makes clear that the potential problems are “not countrywide”, and cites Dover in Kent as at the highest risk of disruption, stating: “Risk of travel disruption could result in school and early years settings closures, pupil and staff absence and exam disruption (though to a lesser extent in Oct due to limited exams being sat).”

So is it Armageddon?

A DfE spokesperson said: “While we don’t comment on leaked documents, our … guidance to schools and other stakeholders already provides advice on EU exit preparations for schools, including food provision, medical supplies and guidance for EU nationals. We are confident provision for schools will be protected in the event of the UK having to leave the EU without an agreement and there are robust contingency plans in place to ensure schools are prepared in all eventualities.”

The Observer editorial has a classic smear tactic, uniting Trump andJohnson into one all-purpose right-wing populist movement,however vague and conditional:

Trump’s attempt to brand as unpatriotic extremists those progressives who seek to create a fairer, inclusive and more equal society is a familiar one in Britain. Johnson, trapped by his own hardline Brexit rhetoric and hounded from the right by Nigel Farage, is not above adopting a version of Trump’s divisive politics of identity and grievance if he thinks it will help him survive.

 How does the liberal-progressive left respond to the menace of immoral, unscrupulous rightwing populism, personified by Trump and the Johnson cabinet? [Via a bit of a damp squib] To defeat it, and resist the global rise of authoritarianism, liberals and progressives of all stripes must join forces around a programme of reform. In Britain, that means considering parliamentary and electoral coalitions of the willing, focused in the first instance on dispelling the Brexit nightmare.

The Observer is les clearabout how this tactical and opportunist stuff will meet the demand for

honest, practical leaders ready to shake things up and address vital issues of income inequality, healthcare, education, infrastructure and the climate crisis.