People keep asking what will happen about Brexit, and that's a wholly reasonable concern.
They also ask what will happen about our lame duck government and what might be done to solve the fact that we now have a minority administration, headed by a prime minister that no one has any confidence in, backed by a party who are very clearly at war with each other still over Europe. That's at least as much of a concern.
Those asking also look at polling figures and see Labour's rise since June 8, but know all too well that such leads can vaporise and that as a result it is quite impossible to forecast a general election result if there were to be one. Which adds to the concern.
And all the time the clock ticks on Article 50 and a cliff edge gets closer. If you're not worried about that, I think you should be.
But the real question is, what happens to solve this almighty mess we have got into to? Of course the Tories could stagger on, although how is not clear; not least to them, I suspect.
Or, as many readers will know I have long supported, there could be a progressive alliance including an agreement on electoral reform and, now, a broad based approach to negotiation to find the best deal for the UK as a whole on Brexit. I still think that the way forward, but the maths does not favour it unless some Tories defect and the DUP abandon their new found riches. And much as I wish it, I can't see that happening.
So a general election is possible, except for the disastrous impact that this would have on the time scale for reaching any EU agreement as many more months are lost.
Or there is option four, and that is a national government. We did, of course, have one in 1931. It was not a happy experience in a great many ways, not least for democracy itself. But is it possible that the combined centre ground (which is, of course, somewhat to the right) could agree to do this cross party lines instead of having a progressive alliance and try to do what might politely be called a 'Macron'? I think the possibility has to be considered. There's a long summer coming and all options and their risks have to be appraised. But I stress, this one really does not appeal: in the end, as Macron looks likely to do, this will only encourage populism rather than deal with the issues it raises and that would be deeply troubling.
Or to put it another way, I am struggling to see a way out of the mess in any way but one, which is the only other option that I can think of. And that is that there is a cross party agreement on one issue, which is to seek a repeal of Article 50 and that the UK then turn its attention to dealing with our own issues instead of trying to disrupt the EU and world stage instead. Yes we would be a humbled and diminished nation as a result. But better that then a broken one, which is where we are heading.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Although as a remain voter I have advocated just getting on with BREXIT, I could not agree more with your analysis.
This country has been misruled for far too long. Parliament has not just not kept up with society in my view. The debate in the commons yesterday was just a moan about the flak they get for being out of touch.
What was worse about it was that the Parties themselves – especially the Tories – have not shied away from showing us how to persecute others in the name of austerity. Supported by a free Press that abuses its freedom.
I totally agree with your idea of withdrawing Article 50.
A mess (a minority Government/divided parliament) cannot sort out a morass (BREXIT).
You have spoken truth to power. I hope that they are reading.
I can only hope
May asking for suggestions with overtures to assemble some kind of informal Brexit coalition with Labour is such an obvious political bear trap!
So blatant it is comical. Does she think we cannot see she wants Corbyn will be on hand to take the blame for the mess of Brexit?
Maybe May just has to go before any cross party coalition is formed – with the strict understanding that its remit is to repeal Article 50.
Fingers crossed.
We’ve now had the informed factual discussion (re the true impact of Brexit) that we should have had before the referendum. A snap 2nd referendum should now be held – the result would be remain – paving the way for the repeal of Article 50.
Whichever way it goes Brexit is going to be a national humiliation. For all of the big talk Boris gives it, I can’t help but feel it will turn out like his antics on a zipline:
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-07/13/15/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane01/anigif_sub-buzz-15594-1468439384-2.gif
IMHO it is only a matter of time before a majority of the voting public favour abandoning Brexit. As long as the Tories stay in power their rabid right wing will have to own Brexit and go down with that ship. Ideally Boris will be at the helm. Please, don’t anyone throw them any life belts!
I don’t think any alternative government will now do Brexit as May planned
National Government? No way. The 1931 Government was misbegotten in almost every way, not least because it seems highly likely that it was an example of the monarch intervening directly in politics, as it would appear Ramsay McDonald went to the Palace intending to resign, and was persuaded to head a National Government by George V.
Whether George V was privy to Baldwin’s “malice aforethought”, in realising just how destructive a National Government would be to Labour’s fortunes, is open to question, but Baldwin certainly knew what he was doing, and played his hand brilliantly, almost destroying Labour, and becoming PM himself early in the life of the National Government – a trick Mrs Mayhem has tried to play, with far less finesse, with her call for cooperation, or rather collaboration, by other Parties.
And as to a progressive alliance, a true PA is really going to need a new General Election, preceded by months of grassroots campaigning to allow a Progressive Alliance to take power. (Incidentally, never has my assertion that Blair’s greatest failure, betrayal of the country, even, was his kicking into the long grass of the Jenkins Report on PR – the whole of the last decade would have been immeasurably better, had we had Jenkins’s AV+ in place, as it would have produced better functioning Parliaments, more reflective of the electorate’s wishes, and probably one or more coalition Governments motivated by voter concerns, rather than dogmatic ideology).
No, the route implied by your piece, Richard, but not specifically spelled out, is to use the Fixed Term Parliament Act to shortcut the move towards a Progressive Alliance – something implicit in the Chuka Umana/Annette Soubry initiative, namely, to build a PA in the present Parliament, force a No Confidence vote of May’s Government, once it is clear sufficient rebel Tories are on board to be sure it can be won, and then offer an alternative Government for the Commons to vote on, with the chance of that alternative administration taking power.
This could happen well before the end of the year, where an electoral Progressive Alliance would take a number of years to implement, but is hazardous for two reasons.
First, it relies on Corbyn and the Labour Party being fully on board, and fully involved, even if the Leader of such an alternative Administration might not be Corbyn, but could, instead, be e.g. Carolyn Lucas, or a Blairite Labour MP, or even a Tory – that would all have to be negotiated.
Secondly, and equally difficult, is it would be procedurally fraught, given that the sitting/outgoing Administration – Mrs Maybe’s – has the right to try first to form a new administration with the 14 days permitted under the FTPA. The alternative administration should inform the Speaker of their intention, get his approval to acting as follows, namely, go propose their Alternative Administration immediately after the loss of the No Confidence vote.
If that Alternative Administration vote were to pass, the Leader of that group would become Prime Minister designate, and May would have to go to the Palace and resign, and the Queen would then summon the AA Leader to the Palace and appoint him or her PM.
This would have the additional advantage of establishing Parliament’s right to appoint a PM – in stark contrast to the 1931 precedent.
Before we start the grovelling, let’s have a little consideration of a little counterfactual — what if Britain had voted to stay last year? Where exactly would we be standing now?
Here’s a pretty likely scenario (apologies if you’ve considered this all before).…
We’d have a relatively ‘stable’ Tory PM — if not David Cameron it would almost certainly be George Osbourne, enthroned after a smooth hand-over now that the Tory Europe boil had safely been lanced. They’d be able to continue their process of austerity, state shrinkage and corporate troughing, knowing that the boundary changes would come to their rescue in 2020.
We’d have a Labour party knackered in the polls, the Blairites taking every opportunity possible to weaken Corbyn. The public — including millions of uninspired young voters – still blissfully unaware of his qualities or those of his policies (or how shallow the depth of ‘talent’ is in the Tories for that matter).
We’d have the irredeemably path-dependent neoliberal EU blithely continuing on their trajectory — the Commission taking anything over a 2% remain margin as a go ahead for very much more of the same. They’d be aided and abetted by a now even-less meaningfully restricted City of London. We’d have the UK continuing to lead the way in the race-to-the-bottom with corporation tax cuts and continued disruption of almost every piece of regulation designed to protect us and our environment.
We’d be relying on these institutions to protect us for GFC 2 — our potential responses to it restricted by the four-freedoms, the Treaties, the Fiscal Compacts, and the group-think. We’d be in line for the next batch of democracy abolition.
Instead we have a situation where policies at least approaching what you (rightly) recommend in ‘The Courageous State’ are just a DUP tantrum away from being implemented. That would not, as BenzO says above, be ‘a national humiliation’ — quite the opposite.
We’re a year into the aftermath of a once-in-four-decade opportunity to significantly alter the direction of travel of our country (and the EU too) — only fools thought it would be easy or a bed of roses. I voted leave last year, and had I known how it would turn out so far, I’d still have done so.
I’d do so tomorrow too.
Oddly, I have been reflecting on a number of such scenarios myself
But I would not have voted for this mayhem; not in a million years
Good post – the vote catalysed the country. There needs to be a new economic trajectory that provides training (worthy of the name), fairly paid jobs (which last some length of time) an industrial policy worthy of the name (and with due consideration given to the need to de-carbonise) – & funded by Richards Green QE. The current turnmoil presents an opportunity – it will be interesting to see if Corbyn grasps it – him & his party are about the only ones in a position to do so.
This is what surprises me about the blog – you two have come up with a whole new angle
A Labour government that implements a job guarantee programme would be splendid.
School followed by FE, apprenticeship or job guarantee is what is needed.
Fair comment. There is the opportunity for something good to come out of the chaos, perhaps a positive form of the shock doctrine, rather than neoliberalism and asset stripping.
By national humiliation I mean that the UK will be forced to reappraise its standing in the world, which is undoubtedly lesser than the Brexiteers would like to have us believe. Not that is an inherently bad thing..
I think it may finally drag us out of our post-war thinking
In reply to Mike Parr — I couldn’t agree more. You’re right about the vote catalysing the country — for all the talk of it being unnecessary and devisive I thought that one of the most encouraging outcomes of the whole Brexit debate. Say what you like about the utility of referendums, when they offer a real choice (ie. not the AV fiasco) the effect on participation is huge. The engagement of the public, first in Scotland and then the rest of Britain, has been hugely beneficial. That these debates have occurred in an age where the influence of the mainstream media is on the wane, is just gravy.
In reply to BenzO For good or ill, and I’m pretty optimistic that it will be for good, we do have a chance to significantly alter the direction of travel — you beat me to the punch of mentioning the Shock Doctrine in this context. You’re also right to point out that at re-evaluation of our role in the world is long overdue.
As things stand I’d be happier fighting for these now rather than clambering back on board and hoping for change that may never come — we can be assured that the asset-strippers and corporate looters are ready to take what they can.
The urgency of the catastrophic climate situation alone led me to think it was worth all the risks before — and I’m increasingly convinced now.
FWIW I think we should be confident in the essentia decency of the people of this country — especially the concerned, informed and galvanised young — hold our nerve and something decent can come of this.
@AdrianD @Mike Parr
Thanks for two posts which show there is opportunity for a better outcome than sticking with the status quo being membership of the ordo/neo-liberal EU.
The image of Osborne as PM is truly horrifying.
Everyone who voted for Corbyn (twice), as well as Leave, is responsible for creating this situation.
Your post is a timely reminder of what might have been if all three votes, or even one or two of them, had had different outcomes.
Yes, “There may be trouble ahead”, but I’m quite ok with how things have panned out so far.
Let’s hope the Labour Party know the right things to do when the time comes.
But carrying on as we were was not an option.
One is loathe to make predictions but …. my guess is the Tories will wade further into the quicksand of Article 50 until they eventually sink, screaming and shouting. With a change of ‘leadership’ this scenario could persist until the next GE. I mean who knows what the vipers are hatching out at 55 Tufton Street? At some point there will have to be a GE and, as you suggest, it’s far too early to guess what the outcome would be. Corbyn’s current poll lead is fragile; and is it even accurate? One can be sure, however, that the hard-line ‘Brexiteers’ will conjur up every dirty trick in the book.
We live in ‘interetsing times’. Seems to be a ‘Zugzwang’ situation (thanks for the word Prof. Danaher!). I can’t see the game ending in a draw. At some point it will be ‘check mate’. One can only hope & pray that the winner will be true democracy. But, like many high level chess matches, it could go on for an interminably long time.
I voted remain on the basis that it would be easier to reform the EU from within and because the UK also has a neo-liberal agenda, so no domestic change in the immediate term.
Having just read the above posts, I agree the ensuing chaos offers real opportunity for a radical new direction of travel, which wouldn’t have happened if ‘Remain’ had won the referendum. That was why my son voted for ‘Brexit’.
While Theresa May is in enforced damage limitation mode, Corbyn’s talks today with Michel Barnier could prove of some significance in nudging the balance of power in Westminster.
A possible scenario is that the UK ends up with bxggxr all and the EU reforms itself, as it now admits it has to. Humble Pie might be all there is left on the menu. Watch this space, as they say.
@John D
I take heart from your post:
“Having just read the above posts, I agree the ensuing chaos offers real opportunity for a radical new direction of travel, which wouldn’t have happened if ‘Remain’ had won the referendum. That was why my son voted for ‘Brexit’.”
It seems to me the one “Progressive” approach would be to work for an end state which leaves us free of ordo/neo-liberalism whether sourced from Westminster or Brussels.
The current “Progressive” approach comes over Tories bad, EU good.
Instead how about promoting a Britain which is socially liberal, economically literate to show that a focus on the well-being of all is an achievable goal of economic policy and where democracy and education trump business and special interests.
Is there not a little wishful thinking going on here, unsupported by the facts and history? The 20thC was full of shocks, perhaps largely due to political failures, with untold deaths, destruction, dislocation and misery, and although post WW2 there has been peace (more or less) in Europe (we’ve exported our shocks elsewhere) and for around 20 years “we’d never had it so good” – socially and economically – not much really changed in the political system in the UK and gradually the rich and the financial industry gradually regained control so that once again we have obscene levels of income and wealth disparity, and, more significantly, power disparity.
Anyone who thinks we have democracy in this country has a limited imagination, and I can’t see much changing without radical, (revolutionary even) reforms. The political leaders may shuffle about thanks to Brexit, but nothing much will really change.
Brexit means brexit no longer means anything (not that it ever did), since the referendum, through debate on article 50 and so on, the government have been _forced_ to show us what _their brexit_ means. It means not being in the single market or customs union yet having a deal “at least as good as”, it means leaving Euratom with the implications on cancer care, it probably doesn’t mean reduced immigration etc etc etc. Far from being quids in, it means a hefty settlement that will take longer than our membership to make up for (on top of the 69 billion added through QE since the ref). it means higher prices for food, a lower pound (great for export we are told, but the data doesn’t seem to reflect that)
It seems possible to vote against _this governments version of brexit_ without directly voting against brexit and without an alternative, the only viable option could be to remain.