The so-called Yellowhammer report is wrong. I can say that with absolute confidence. Every forecast is, and I've delivered a lot in my time, always with that caveat attached to them. But in my opinion that does not mean it is not important. That's precisely its significance.
All it really says with certainty is four things. The first is that we do not know what will happen if we hard-Brexit. The second is that we can be sure that some consequences will be very uncomfortable, at least for a while. The third is that there is no known solution to the Irish border issue, whatever Conservative politicians wish to claim. And the last, and perhaps the most significant, is that whatever happens the uncertainty of Brexit will continue for a considerable time to come: any deal only leads to more negotiation. No deal just makes that next step harder, and potentially more drawn out.
I am not saying that worrying about particular drug supplies does not matter. Or that we should not worry about civil unrest, and so on. Of course those risks need mitigation. But precisely what those risks are does still remain uncertain. The points I make are, in the event of no deal, certain within the parameters I note. And of all these the last is the greatest: there is no end in sight.
And that matters. We have an election coming. This time there will be no avoiding Brexit. In 2017 it could be pretended that it was in the distance. This time it is not. And so it will dominate all campaigns, whatever other issues parties wish to add to the mix. And what voters will need to know is that unless they vote for Article 50 revocation then the nightmare, with which most are utterly fed up, will continue. Precisely for that reason, and whether readers here like it or not, this is why I think the LibDems will do well in England and Wales and the SNP will in Scotland. Both parties have broad bases. And both are offering ways out of the current situation.
The Tories only offer more chaos. The Labour position has logic to it. And at the same time if Fiona Bruce can tear it to shreds - and she did - then so too can anyone else. However logical it is to say that you will negotiate a new deal to put to a referendum, if you then say you will campaign against that deal the conviction that you will bring to the negotiating process has to be in doubt. And that's the flaw in the Labour logic.
So, both major parties offer more delay, prevarication, and long term uncertainty as their core election offering. And that is not what the country wants.
The nationalists and Alliance vote will rise in Northern Ireland as a result.
The SNP will not sweep Scotland, but they will have a resounding majority there.
And the LibDems will hold many more seats in England and Wales than anyone might have thought possible a couple of years ago.
And Yellowhammer can be used to predict all that. All it says is we're in a mess. What some parties will be able to offer is a certain way out of that mess. The only way to achieve that is to stay in the EU, and reform it, which I believe possible, because there is no human made institution incapable of being reformed: to claim otherwise is, very politely, to be absurd.
Yellowhammer draws battle lines. And our two main parties are drawing them badly.
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:
Oh but for a government of national unity!!
Pilgrim you mean like the one we had with Ramsey MacDonald? We need a government that works for the many not just the few.
No John Adams.
What about during the second world war and what came immediately after it as a result of having to work together?
And who says it has to be like MacDonald’s? Not I, nor maybe others. It can be different you know!
Who is Fiona Brice?
Typing error corrected
Bruce
Thanks, Richard. I agree that she is not the brightest crayon in the box. Which may say something about the Labour leadership, sadly.
Am I right, you think the ONLY way for Labour *not* to draw its battle line badly, would be to become a party dedicated to a Remain position?
If so, how could the party that is increasingly taking a democratic socialist stance claim to be democrats, attract support for its heroic anti-austerity position from people who voted leave and become the next government whose manifesto mandated them to renegotiate the WA (even after we leave) and then offer a Leave/Remain option? (Admittedly, if by the next GE we have actually left the EU, Labour would need to have agreed with the EU that ‘backdating’ our membership (rejoining on old terms) were possible).
It’s messy and all about timing, I know, but being an outright Remain party would mean our actions become indistinguishable from the LibDems’ and our belief in democracy suspended. That’s not democracy and probably not electorally successful either. (For sure, the Tom Watson brigade would support it and it would guarantee that the Labour movement fails due to its political party disintegrating.
Worth it?
I know all the internal risks
I appreciate there issues
Labour has to ask if it wants to be in government or pure
And nothing requires that Labour be the LibDems to achieve that: swaying so completely undermines your argument
And beyond th rather small world of the CLP, this would be what the Labour movement needs. And that has always been Labour’s Achilles heel
Yellowhammer refers, if somewhat obliquely, to mitigation measures being put in place and the assumptions made are based on that notion. Proroguing Parliament meant that several bills enabling post-brexit measures on trade, agriculture and fishing were lost. If BoJo gets his way in the Supreme Court MP’s and Peers will have to go through procedures again on top of everything else and in record time. To paraphrase; legislate in haste, repent at leisure.
Yes, yellowhammer mitigation measures need additional supporting/enabling legislation. BJs proroguing of Parliament makes them time-difficult, maybe not possible before 31 Oct. Hoisted by their own (prorogue) petard?
BoJo’s thinking seems to be that as long as the all-important commercial players make things happen (like reasserting post brexit definitions of British waters and air space, etc), then the legislative arrangements to enable them are (obviously) unimportant. If they *were* important then the Houses of Parliament would be called ‘Houses of Parliament Ltd’ and making profits. Well, parliament would not be prorogued for so long.
This is the crazyness of Boris Johnson. He sees the world as a Randian enterprise and can’t even do brexit effectively. Cockup or conspiracy? Doesn’t matter, disaster capitalism will result either way.
A point of interest. Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem!
Civil Service joke?
🙂
Article makes it onto one of favourite websites: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/09/richard-murphy-brexit-yellowhammer-is-wrong-but-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-ignore-it.html
I wondered where the traffic was coming from…..
Thanks