The Observer rates the odds on blocking Brexit as follows this morning:
Corbyn-led temporary government
Jeremy Corbyn has offered to lead a temporary government tasked with requesting a delay to Brexit from the EU, before triggering an election.
Likelihood: one in five
Government of national unity
Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, has said Corbyn cannot command enough support to lead a temporary government. She has instead suggested a temporary government of national unity, led by a more neutral figure such as Labour's Harriet Harman or veteran Tory Ken Clarke.
Likelihood: two in five
New laws blocking no deal
MPs such as Dominic Grieve, Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles and Yvette Cooper have been part of efforts to pass new legislation that orders the prime minister to request a Brexit delay to avoid no deal.
Likelihood: three in five
A Brexit deal is agreed
Some MPs are still holding out hope that Boris Johnson will offer them a vote on a Brexit deal based on the agreement put forward by Theresa May. For it to pass, Labour MPs opposed to a second referendum, such as Lisa Nandy, would have to back it.
Likelihood: two in five
Am I saying they are right? No, I'm not. But I also think their relative rankings may not be far out.
Do I think they have considered all the options? Probably, within the parliamentary arena.
Does this mean that there is only a two in five chance of No Deal departure (the inverse of the new law blocking a deal option)? No, I don't think so. I think it's higher than that. The cards are still stacked in favour of the government. That means all the rankings mentioned may be right, but they could be out of seven, maybe. That then leaves No Deal the most likely option.
And is it the case that we are looking at a scenario where all the action takes place in parliament? That, to me, seems the most interesting question.
These options still assume no international pressure is brought to bear on the UK.
It also assumes no succvessful legal challenges to what Johnson might propose.
And it assumes no extra-parliamentary action, which still seems to be possible to me: the cold light of reality has still, I think, to dawn on people regarding just how chaotic this might all be, with serious consequences for the country which suggest civil disruption arising either before, or after, 31 October and with deeply unpredictable consequences.
So, what would I wish for? I have indicated I think Corbyn was right to try to suggest he should lead an alternative government. As Leader of the Opposition that was an appropriate claim to make. I am glad he tried.
I suspect his attempt has failed. In a day or two that will be obvious. And it will become equally clear that sticking to it will be obdurate in the face of a forthcoming national calamity. The right move can become the wrong move in that case.
So we now need a week to forget the last week and all the rival claims. But that week should be spent talking about parliamentary tactics.
The job now is to, firstly, block Brexit.
Second, there then needs to be agreement between all parties opposed to Brexit to support a vote of no confidence to force an election because there is no chance of agreement on an alternative government or second referendum, I would suggest.
Third, parties need to be prepared for this. I think most are. I am still not sure Labour is, at all.
Fourth, this does require some serious consideration about anti-No Deal cooperation. I wish I thought this likely. I am not convinced I am.
Don't rule out all of this still leading to No Deal, and maybe no way back.
But one has to hope.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
The only argument Brexiteers deploy is the narrow 52%/48% majority in a calculatedly divisive referendum called solely to save the Conservative Party from itself. Even that object has catastrophically failed. Here is today’s Guardian report of the interview with the Conservative ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP on BBC Radio Scotland yesterday morning, which I heard. Grieve criticised strongly the “tub-thumping populism”, which he said had led “straightforwardly” to the death threats he has received.
“Grieve, who revealed an arrest had recently been made in respect of a death threat against him, told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme: “I want to save the Tory party from the likes of Mr Johnson — he’s hijacking it and taking it in directions which I find extremely worrying. “I don’t like the rhetoric, after all, the rhetoric leads straightforwardly to the death threats which I receive. And this seems to me that the language he’s using is not that of what I would expect of a Conservative prime minister. We have a deeply divided country — I think we have to accept that — and we are not going to resolve this problem by the sort of tub-thumping populism which he’s trying to espouse. He’s behaving like a demagogue, but I don’t think we should be surprised about that given his track record.”
Grieve said if leading politicians use “emotive language” such as “collaborator” or calling people “traitors”, MPs “immediately start to receive really vile emails and communications from members of the public, and some of them contain death threats”. He added: “All of us who have been trying to stand up for our principles and for our country are recipients of this. “It’s been going on for a long time but I would expect a Conservative prime minister to absolutely denounce this and also to make sure that in his own rhetoric and language he avoids anything which can encourage it. And it’s quite plain that he’s not doing so. I’m not surprised at that in view of my own assessment of him””.
This chilling revelation by Grieve is the direct consequence not just of Brexit and Brexiteers, but the whole argument that has turned a narrow and highly controversial referendum result into the absurd proposition that this fragile majority is the decisive and eternal ‘will of the British people’; but with the lethal purpose of establishing an elective dictatorship in Britain that now seeks to rob people of their personal citizenship rights, and bully them into submission to the politics of petty and vindictive tyranny. We are, fairly obviously, not simply dealing with reasonable people.
If he believes all that then Grieve should have backed Corbyn.
Sorry – but I think it is simply said and done.
Sadly Jo Swinson, like too many people is too precipitous. This will play out, quite quickly. Jeremy Corbyn may very likely not prove the right person to lead this, but Swinson was too quick publicly to reject it.
Nevertheless, if Jeremy Corbyn does not lead this movement, will Labour MPs allow a no-deal Brexit to go through because he doesn’t lead it? Good luck with that; feast on the result of that decision.
What matters is choosing someone who can lead, for a brief, ephemeral moment in history the unification of all Remainers; including Conservatives. The person is not actually that imprortant, provided onlt they can hold their nerve. Think this through.
Am thinking
I agree with you, but I fear it will be no deal now
“The person is not actually that important, provided only they can hold their nerve”
Exactly – the person is not that important given the steps the interim government will take will already be laid out before it takes office, and limited to that. All politicians can see this, yet Swinson et al are still prepared to play politics.
Given Corbyn is the default leader of the opposition and the Labour party has by far the majority of MPs who will vote against no deal, it seems ridiculous to say we will take every step to stop non deal, to understand that the leader of such an interim government is not that important, yet to insist that it shouldn’t be led by Corbyn.
Hopefully Corbyn will hold his nerve as you say and receive the backing needed. Any no deal outcome is not on Corbyn or the Labour party that’s for sure.
It seems the Sunday Times managed to get hold of a government report about the effects a no-deal Brexit would have. I wonder if it will get the amount of publicity it needs or quietly disappear into limbo.
https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1162971453257670656
A blog may follow
Willie John says:
“It seems the Sunday Times managed to get hold of a government report about the effects a no-deal Brexit would h”
This will be ‘Operation Yellowhammer’ I presume. (?)
What’s in a name?
Very telling sometimes and I’m wearing my best tin foil hat this morning.
“A little bit of bread and no cheese”. in the short term.
In the longer term we sign up to the US campaign to bash the Chinese ? The war of empires. (Coming to a planet near you soon.
Not many will know that the phraseology you use is a way of recognising the call of the yellowhammer, if my memory is correct
“Not many will know that the phraseology you use is a way of recognising the call of the yellowhammer, if my memory is correct
Hmmmm…. I forget just how many generations distant British people are from the land…… my grandfather worked with plough horses when he ‘were a lad’. (and it wasn’t on a theme park, it was a farm)
It is beyond farcical. Dominic Grieves is adamant no deal will be a disaster, that Johnson is stoking violence, including death threats to himself, yet this is better than supporting a brief Corbyn led Government. The Lib Dems will do anything it takes, except support a brief Corbyn led government. etc etc.
A plague on all their houses. They are so far beyond contempt- I have no words for them.
New laws blocking no deal
MPs such as Dominic Grieve, Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles and Yvette Cooper have been part of efforts to pass new legislation that orders the prime minister to request a Brexit delay to avoid no deal.
That does nothing. No deal is the default, only the PM can request an extension or revoke. He just sits on his hands and challenges the law. There is a better chance of May’s deal going zombie and passing.
The problem is that the pro brexit vote has coalesced around no-deal while the anti-no deal vote is split between unicorns, sailed ships, 2nd referendum, and revoke. Each with a party or two to split the vote. And a large portion of the country that just wants it sorted either way. Even if you do stop it temporarily the brexiteers will go nuts crying betrayal and likely win the election. Even an election too soon after no deal before the chaos really hits could vanquish the brexit party and give boris an edge. The best option is probably being seen to try and stop it and have Boris holding the hot potato until his majority of 1 can’t hold.
A blog on this issue may follow…
The numbers are either meaningless or inconsistent. 1 in 5 conventionally means a probability of .2. Assuming his options are 1) mutually exclusive, and 2) that they are the only ones, and 3) that his numbers assume no deal is avoided, they should add up to 1. But they add up to 1.6. if any of the assumptions I listed are incorrect, that just makes the inconsistency worse.
[…] I just want to ask a simple question, and that is, suppose that this is right? What if, despite ministerial denials, which so far most people have been all too willing to believe there is supply chain break down post-Brexit, most especially with No Deal, which I now think increasingly likely. […]
One thing in his favour (other than being leader of the Opposition which means he is by default the person expected to head an alternative government if this current regime is voted down) …is that by nature Corbyn performs more like a convener than a dictator of party policy.
One of the most strident criticisms of Corbyn is that he has not used the power of his popular mandate as party leader in the Thatcher/Blair manner to which we have become accustomed.
Given his declared scepticism (but devoid of rabid antipathy) towards the EU, he would seem to be a perfect candidate to head a coalition of parliament committed to salvaging some shreds of dignity from the mess created by attempts to preserve Tory unity at all costs. Lets face it, even a lot of Tories are embarrassed by that.
That he is not an obvious natural leader is to my mind one of the greatest qualities he could bring to the task. But he would have to be seen to keep his own troops in order.
Ken Clark and Harriet Harman. No thanks. The conservative elite have had their chance and blown it, though their input would be as valid as any other “honourable members'”.
His proffered solution of a two year interim government is flawed only in that I’m not convinced that two years is a realistic timescale to repair the level of division that the Brexit process (or lack of process) has so far created.
I agree re Clarke and Harman: definitely not right
And I have made clear, I’d happily compromise on Corbyn even if Labour’s lukewarmness on the EU still irritates the heck out of me
I’m afraid that I think that Simon Jenkins speaks a lot of sense about Corbyn’s position today.
I will go and see….
Having said that, upon a bit more reflection maybe we Remainers have been getting a bit carried away here? A bit desperate?
Dominic Grieve & Co – are they really that noble just because they do not want a No Deal or reject BREXIT?
I have to make myself remember that Soubry and Alexander and Woolcott have all served in one of the meanest and most destructive of Tory administrations in my life time. Their being in power has blighted my life this last 9 (getting on for 10) years. Yes, these ‘noble’ Tories want to stop BREXIT or a form of it, but their ideologically based hatred of Corbyn it seems is more important to them. And as Brexit continues so does Tory policy sadism.
What does that tell us? As I said briefly in another of Richard’s posts, the TINA attitude of one Maggie Thatcher dominates the Tory party – this unwillingness to compromise – to rule, to dominate absolutely that is in itself undemocratic. The Tory willingness to use populist tropes to maintain their rule proves this beyond any doubt in my view.
Sure – Corbyn – if he were to be in a short term unity Government – might pick up a bonus point or two in a follow on election as the public approved of stopping a No Deal at least and even revoking Article 50.
But that just shows that Grieve and Co are scared of losing – even for the good of the country. Instead they create the phantom of the ‘middle of the road’ candidate as a means of satisfying their addiction of seeing themselves as the ‘natural party of Government’. By doing this, they also help to pull part the Labour party who has problems with its own leader, making them increasingly seem unfit for Government.
The more I think about this through this lens, the more I actually agree with Corbyn. A GE IS what is needed. And if Labour were to win from even a slightly better majority than May got in the last one, at least the domestic policy arena would change as it desperately needs to (although it would be no where as radical as it could be). But at least the Tories would have gone. We don’t need them.
Yes – BREXIT would still remain and it would need to be hacked through. A better domestic policy regime might actually salve public sentiment on BREXIT making a leave scenario less likely. I’d delay leave again – let the kinder, healing domestic policies settle in first and see what happens when the new Government goes back to the people.
Having said all that though – and it all sounds reasonable and desirable to me at least – these are not reasonable times. Democracy has basically stopped working because powerful and monied forces that reside at the very top of our society subvert it everyday. The mob has been unleashed and it has taken over. The Marxists were right – revolution has taken place – but instead it is a far-right revolution not a left wing one, upper class, not lower class, posh accents not regional ones, seeking to up the ante and make vested interests even more powerful and unapologetic than before.