More cautious language from accountants for ProjectFear

The Graun keeps up the pressure, even while talks seem to be going on among sherpas in tunnels at a border in the English Channel (I may have confused a few stories here).Scary (sub)headline as usual:

Whitehall’s spending watchdog report concludes UK faces significant, unpredictable risks 

there could be freight delays, more crime and fewer checks on migrants in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a critical report from Whitehall’s spending watchdog has found.... there are significant, unpredictable risks which could lead to chaos at the UK’s ports.

Is this actually what the auditors said? Surely a supporting quote is required?

auditors said the government acknowledged that the operation of the border would be “less than optimal” in the event of no deal....“It is impossible to know exactly what would happen,” it says.

Bit of a difference with the Graun's gloss then, but we can explain that the report was necessarily 'Couched in the cautious language of an auditor'. As opposed to the incautious language of a journalist?

Meanwhile, the Graun editorial might be shifting on to its next moral crusade, perhaps beginning to think that Brexit is exhausted, maybe even that, heaven forbid, a deal might happen and leave them with much less virtue to signal

Today the Guardian is making a pledge to our readers that we will play our part, both in our journalism and in our own organisation, to address the climate emergency. We hope this underlines to you the Guardian’s deep commitment to quality environmental journalism, rooted in scientific fact.... we believe the Guardian’s specialist team of reporters, editors and writers has a vital role to play in working with our readers to understand the unfolding climate crisis and all its ramifications.

Agony Aunt for Remain

M Frostrup in the Observer hears from a family split by Brexit:

My husband and I are moderate in our political views and both voted to remain in the EU. My parents and mother-in-law voted to leave. I look at my daughter and feel devastated that her world is potentially going to be smaller than mine, with fewer opportunities to live, love and work as she pleases [she couldn't be arsed to get visas or residency permits? It's only the EU she wants to live, love and work in?] ....We’ve talked about leaving the UK for a more open and inclusive society, [where did they have in mind?] but don’t want to leave our parents dependent on paid-for care [ah] . Whichever option we explore, we’re increasingly resentful [yes -- but shouldn't that have been 'vulnerable'?] our parents voted for us to be in this position (based on various arguments, some with racist undertones),[they were alone in voting to Leave?]  and that they don’t even recognise the situation

Frostrup replies:

It was only a matter of time before this toxic political fracas, currently dividing us like the most bitter of divorces, came to haunt lifestyle pages as well as the headlines. So many families and friendships have been torn asunder by the passion disgorged on both sides, with the only comfort being that it’s a long while since people engaged with politics with such ferocity.[!]

 What chance do you think you have of changing your parents’ minds? That seems to me to be the crux of this impasse. Those of us holding out for a second referendum do so with scant belief that the voting percentages would change dramatically. What seems to have occurred since that fateful June morning, when our children lost their right to roam among their closest neighbours [!], is greater entrenchment and growing resentment on both sides.

I’m the first to admit that remain’s argument was lacklustre, out-of-touch and ultimately patronising....On the opposite side are those who were sold the Brexit dream by a bunch of desperados who make secondhand car salesmen look like paragons of truth and virtue. Those torch bearers are like the serial adulterer – no matter how many times they are exposed as having deceived us, they plead their commitment and promise tomorrow will be different.

But:

No matter what happens we are all, Remainers and Brexiters, going to have to learn to harmoniously co-habit on our small island with understanding, patience, empathy and reduced hyperbole [after one more demonstration of it]

The answer is jolly old bourgeois commonsense.Not at all patronising:

I wouldn’t try to change their minds or convince them they’ve got it wrong. Instead, illustrate to them that many of their fears – whether of marauding migrants or lack of self-determination – are unjustified. Be honest, but without acrimony when you explain the decisions you’ve made, bearing in mind their wellbeing and with your child’s future at the forefront of your mind.

The Observer/Guardian on 'editorial independence'

Usual and still tiresome stuff from the Observer. It seems PV or CV is back in the running, as UK/EU talks seem to wax and wane (the sherpas are currently in the tunnel, but tomorrow -- who knows):

Support grows for a new Brexit poll amid fears over Johnson’s plan 

Pro-remain MPs predicted on Saturday that they were gaining sufficient cross-party support to secure a second Brexit referendum as fresh doubts were raised over whether Boris Johnson can secure a deal with the EU that can pass through parliament...Pro-remain MPs predicted on Saturday that they were gaining sufficient cross-party support to secure a second Brexit referendum as fresh doubts were raised over whether Boris Johnson can secure a deal with the EU that can pass through parliament....It will coincide with a pro-referendum march through London, which organisers say a million people could join.

No longer any pretence that being pro PV is really Remaining. I hope the marchers will not be impeded by the XR protesters

The DUP is warning about too much compromise and 'Labour is understood to be ready to whip its MPs to back a second referendum'. However, the Times says Labour is still in favour of a GNU -- with the Speaker as PM!

Pro-referendum MPs are also examining other possibilities including reviving May’s deal and making that subject to a second referendum. [No revoking? ]

Heaven forfend that there should be any petty party issues involved in this manoeuvring. Another Observer item raises this scandalous possibility:

“I would urge any Labour MP who is considering voting for a Tory deal to think very, very carefully,” Lewis said. [Lewis is apparently a Labour front-bencher --me neither] ...“If Boris Johnson can go into an election as the man who delivered Brexit, we will be in serious trouble. It will be the Tories, not supportive Labour MPs, that reap the electoral rewards of any such deal. They will in effect be signing up to their own political demise.

All the stories end with this delightful account of Observer/Guardian policy:

At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.

No clashes between 'factual information' and setting their own agenda? They are free from commercial and political bias, but only of the kind exerted by billionaire owners or shareholders.The role of 'spontaneous' ideology is denied.

Kettling -- the future

M Kettle in the Graun has some dire predictions about British politics. There is more volatility at elections,he tells us, more identity-based issues (and who's fault is that?)  and the next election will be a Brexit election, regardless of the old party allegiances. 

I still think the real fear is that his lot will lose, and he will be faced with dripping on and on into an abyss. They might keep the issue boiling for more years. Any election will be possibly catastrophic anyway, hence the scary headline:

Brexit’s legacy for England will be politics as sectarian as Northern Ireland’s 

In the name of public order, we must revoke?

Fears of a deal

There is apparently some optimism (pessimism for Remainers) following the talks between Johnson and Varadkar. Even D Tusk has tweeted (no doubt) to that effect

'I have received promising signals that a Brexit deal is possible' – live news

And in more bad news:

Pound jumps over $1.25 and bank shares soar on Brexit deal hopes – business live

I Hislop once pointed out that similar news of Trump's achievements produced an ambivalent reaction, however -- we were pleased we were not about to go to war with North Korea, but sorry that a Trump initiative had worked.

The Graun finds the best way out of this dilemma:

Breaking the mould: Leo Varadkar is no typical Irish politician

The gay son of an Indian immigrant has rebalanced [!] his country’s relationship with Britain...when the two met in north-west England on Thursday, in private, away from journalists and the usual panoply of summitry, Johnson was forced to look up to Varadkar, both literally and metaphorically...The taoiseach would have got straight down to business.

It's a triumph for the gay community:

Varadkar...has loosened up since coming out as gay in 2015...“Coming out changes everybody,” said Tiernan Brady, an LGBT activist who advised Varadkar.

Guardian Person beats Tory Knob. There is one note of caution, right at the end as usual:

“Varadkar’s personal political interests have diverted from the national interest,” said Dan O’Brien, the chief economist at the Institute of International and European Affairs. “His political career could be ended by making a concession on the backstop. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin would come down on him like a tonne of bricks. It’s never a good idea for a leader to be painted into a corner.”

Toynbee declares war

In the Graun today:

This is war. That’s the ludicrous intended message of summoning parliament to sit on a Saturday, echoing the eve of battle in 1939.

Luckily, Johnson will lose:

He has just promised his 80 One Nation moderates that his manifesto will pledge a deal, with no deal only as a default. But there is no deal for him to sell, however much he blusters that the EU will yield to him once he is victorious. It won’t...In fear of Farage, watch Johnson follow Dominic Cummings’ lead, converting the Tories into a no-deal Brexit party. Do that and he faces instant schism, with walkouts not just by those 80 MPs but also propelling a large slice of his One Nation voters into the eager arms of the Liberal Democrats.

Against these no dealers, Jeremy Corbyn and his party are united and authentically passionate, in a way they haven’t been for years.  

But:

The danger is in splitting the remain vote. Everything depends on remainers and progressives voting tactically with rigid discipline in each of 150 target seats to keep Johnson out, opting for the best-chance Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP or Plaid Cymru candidate.[What about the Union, though?]

And Johnson will flake, MUST flake, as Remainer common sense finally triumphs:

it will be Brexit, Brexit, Brexit all the way. But on strategy and tactics their record so far is 100% failure. In a five-week, 24/7 media campaign, stuff happens. Unwelcome subjects spring out unexpectedly....Never underestimate Boris Johnson’s ability to crash and burn whenever forced to confront the real world, the EU or the entire electorate.

Capitalists for the EU

Quite a good speculative analysis of the divided interests of capital in this GHuardina piece today:

If any prime minister in the past had shown such a determined ignorance of the dynamics of global capitalism, the massed ranks of British capital would have stepped in to force a change of direction....the Tories now represent the interests of a small section of capitalists who actually fund the party. An extreme version of this argument was floated by the prime minister’s sister, Rachel, and the former chancellor Philip Hammond – both of whom suggested that hard Brexit is being driven by a corrupt relationship between the prime minister and his hedge-fund donors, who have shorted the pound and the whole economy. This is very unlikely to be correct [damn!],  but it may point to a more disconcerting truth.

the capitalists who do support Brexit tend to be very loosely tied to the British economy....Sir James Dyson, who no longer produces in the UK. The owners of several Brexiter newspapers are foreign, or tax resident abroad – as is the pro-Brexit billionaire Sir James Ratcliffe of Ineos.... much of the capital in Britain is not British and not linked to the Conservative party...the Conservative party was without question the party of capital and property, one which stood against the party of organised labour....[Post-War] the Tories represented an increasingly national capitalism, protected by import controls, and closely tied to an interventionist and technocratic state that wanted to increase exports of British designed and made goods. A company like Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) saw itself, and indeed was, a national champion. British industry, public and private, was a national enterprise....

Today there is no such thing as British national capitalism. London is a place where world capitalism does business...Everywhere in the UK there are foreign-owned enterprises, many of them nationalised industries...Most of these foreign-owned businesses, not surprisingly, are hostile to Brexit  

So foreign-owned international capital located in Britain dislikes Brexit. So doesn't that support the view that Brexit might weaken or regulate this appalling global colonisation? No:

The modern British state has distanced itself from the productive economy and is barely able to take an expert view of the complexities of modern capitalism. This was painfully clear in the Brexit impact sectoral reports the government was forced to publish – they were internet cut-and-paste jobs....The state can no longer undertake the radical planning and intervention that might make Brexit work...Brexit is a promise without a plan. But in the real world Brexit does mean Brexit, and no deal means no deal.

Then it gets rather like a 'ruse of reason', not dissimilar to Marx's attempt to explain the anachronistic rise of Napoleon III  -- it still supported his analysis because it was really a necessary modification of capitalism:

Brexit is a necessary crisis, and has provided a long overdue audit of British realities. It exposes the nature of the economy, the new relations of capitalism to politics and the weakness of the state. ..

Even so, all is not quite lost:

From a new understanding, a new politics of national improvement might come; without it we will remain stuck in the delusional, revivalist politics of a banana monarchy.