In the end, it all comes down to Johnson.
Tomorrow Johnson goes to Brussels. Using prerogative powers he can decide whether to compromise with the EU, or not. It is, then, his choice as to whether we will remain in the EU, or otherwise.
Notoriously, it is well known that he wrote two columns for the Telegraph before deciding whether to back Leave or Remain nearly five years ago. He backed Leave then. We have all paid the price for that.
British politics has been crippled by Brexit ever since. I sometimes wonder what might have been achieved if political effort had been put into so many other issues of greater real importance during that period.
It is impossible to know precisely what Johnson will do now. I strongly suspect that he does not know what his negotiating position will be. Maybe he is engaged in writing two political obituaries for himself today. One will document the Tory fury at his betrayal, and subsequent fall as Prime Minister. The other will document the country's fury in 2021 at having to suffer the consequences of having left the EU, and his subsequent fall as prime minister.
There is, in other words, no good decision that Johnson can make. Whatever he does now he backed the wrong policy in 2016. For all its many faults, and I acknowledge them, the EU provides a better trading environment for the UK then any alternative. If only a tiny part of the Brexit energy had been directed into its improvement and reform so much could have been achieved.
That, though, did not happen. As a result, Johnson now faces his moment with fate. Whatever happens will be a disaster for the country. Whatever happens, he will not be forgiven. And even he must know that.
So what will he do? I have little doubt that he will back no deal. My reasoning is quite straightforward, and solely based upon judgement of Johnson's character. As a natural prevaricator he will wish to win the day irrespective of the consequence tomorrow. Leaving wins him time with his own party. It defers his fate. And for that reason alone I think we will leave the EU this week.
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:
I agree. I would add that no deal is the best choice for the lazy. A deal would involve long hours in the House of Commons and perhaps more time reading background documents, both of which would interfere with his lifestyle choices.
You can just see the blame game starting already can’t you?
Anything is better than a federal Europe
Go one then – explain exactly what we gain
No waffle
The top five wins
No waffle
Precision please
“Anything is better than a federal Europe”.
I never thought I would actually see the day, when those practices Britain has through prerogative entitlement long kept well hidden in its ‘dirty linen’ cupboard: but now openly using the threat of breaking international law in legislation, as a bare-faced, shoddy bargaining-counter in an international negotiation, and blame the other party for the decision to use something it had signed and committed the honour of the state to maintain. There died the essence of trust. Worse, much worse, the electorate appears to approve.
I do not wish to live in a country that sinks so low, in unnecessary and exaggerated squabbles with our close friends and allies, who were hard won through bitter, unforgotten mutual experience of European history. Fortunately I am a Scot, and we have a way out of this Union that is now so fast becoming an unconsidered road to secular perdition.
Scotland is another country; we really do wish to do things differently there.
And the best of luck to you John. I want to see an independent Scotland too. Partly as a place where politics might be conducted a great deal better than here, partly as somewhere that could be an example to the benighted English, and partly as a massive boot up the backside for all the ‘global Britain’ fools in the Brexit camp.
‘Anything’?
What – even France and Germany at each other’s throats again?
If it were not for such federalism, the recent nationalism we have seen in the Eurozone could have had much more serious consequences by now.
Quite. This completely ignores *why* the EU exists in the first place. It is not just about importing cheaper prosecco, seasonal labour, and holiday homes in France (what has the EU ever done for us…) Ultimately it is about the main European nation states not going to war again.
A number of EU states already have a federal internal structure, and most of them are entirely comfortable with pooling sovereignty at an appropriate level where necessary to achieve collective aims. Brexit makes deeper EU integration for the remaining member states more likely not less. We will be on the outside of the EU power structure looking in, not on the inside influencing the EU’s direction and leveraging our prominent position within the EU into increased soft power on the world stage.
Agreed
Steve –
“Anything is better than a federal Europe”
I shall respond with the same maturity and attention to detail shown by the proposer…
No, it isn’t. Your go.
That was easy too 🙂
Says a know nothing halfwit who can’t be bothered to provide any reaspons for his statement. And who’d have trouble outhinking a dung beetle.
I do hope that wasn’t aimed at me…
You know this, but it bears saying. We already left the EU at the end of January 2020, although it doesn’t feel like it because most of the EU rules continue to apply for a transition(al)/implementation period which ceases at the end of December (by Johnson’s choice: we could have had another year, but he decided otherwise in June/July).
The only question is what sort of relationship the UK has with the rEU from 11pm on 31 December. And the answer appears to be “no relationship”.
Once the Brexit moment has passed, I expect the EU will spend its energies on other, more fruitful matters and the UK will very much be at the back of the queue. It could be years before there is any further meaningful progress.
I know it, but in many ways the withdrawal agreement is what really defines that and so why don’t know what leaving means until now
On the other hand narcissism might dictate the desire to go down in the history books as the prime-minister who saved Britain from a sticky end through being pragmatic!
You can hope…
Pragmatic cracks appearing in the Brexit wall:-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/08/brexit-uk-drops-plans-to-break-international-law-as-northern-ireland-deal-is-reached
We know that Johnson will choose whatever gives him personally the best acclamation. The question is, who’s approval does he seek? It tends to be “whoever is in the room at the time”. At the meeting with Varadkar last year he capitulated on the Irish Sea border when face-to-face with him but then tried to repudiate it when in the room with is Party colleagues. So, we could get a deal on this basis.
The problem is that we have been hearing “deal = good, no deal = bad” for so long now that when the cold light of 2021 dawns and there are STILL problems (even with a deal) people will be very angry. The truth is “deal = very bad, no deal = disaster”.
Agreed
Absolutely Clive. I think the reason he will return with “no deal”, which will be trumpeted by some sections of the M.S.M as a “victory”, is because he cannot afford to antagonise his own party. If he goes soft, in their opinion, he has betrayed them, and the then majority of English people who voted to leave. As others have pointed out, he has repeatedly complained that he cannot live on his salary, and so will depart the political scene, to board the gravy train which awaits him.
@ Alex Beveridge
And I very much fear that the Tories, rather than following the obvious, even “constitutional”, path, and asking Jeremy Hunt to take over as Leader – a politician with whom I have many disagreements, but who has a solid record of running a large Ministry, the Department of Health, and so is likely to be able to manage what Johnson clearly cannot manage, namely, the boring grind of real management and administration – will instead opt to wheel in Rishi Sunak, as a way of thumbing their nose at the Opposition.
For imagine, the Tories could then say – “We had the 1st woman PM, and then a 2nd woman PM. And now we’ve got the first Asian PM. And you Labour reactionaries haven’t even had a woman Leader yet. We are the true progressives!”
And thus despite the fact that, as demonstrated on this Blog, Sunak is useless.
However, in my worst nightmares, the Tories take this to even further, and decide to combine female with Asian, and opt for Priti Patel instead!! The Hieronymus Bosch painting of “Dulle Griet” or “Mad Margaret” springs to mind! In other words, a disaster of Biblical proportions.
Apologies – I got the attribution of the painting wrong.
It’s by Pieter Bruegel the Elder – info and image here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dull_Gret
We have already left the EU. What is being discussed is what trading relationship the U.K. will have with the EU from 1st January 2021; but in practice, what is being decided is what Political relationship the U.K. will have with the EU
All down to Johnson? I have just listened to the Health Secretary Matt Hancock, not available for interview by C4 news since May, bouncing onto screen with big smiles, cynically exploiting the opportunity to trumpet triumph and shine in the reflected glory, hard on the coat-tails of “V-day” and the arrival of the vaccine: to sell himself as a brilliant success.
Challenged to say whether he took any responsibility for the £10Bn PPE buying fiasco and the disaster of run-down pandemic-ready stocks, or the Chumocracy contract awards, he had the gall to deliver casuistry with a mixture of sober reflection and a smile on his face. He said he took responsibility, but turned the meaning upside down; what he seemed to say was that he was responsible for learning the lessons from the problem of tackling the virus. The failure of austerity, the predilection of the Government to support private industry with no specialist knowledge of the field, or often even any background at all in public health; the serious ideological failures of an incompetent government is wrapped up into the understandable government problem of grappling with a new medical problem at the frontiers of science.
‘The buck stops here’ (the sign on Harry Truman’s desk in the White House) is transformed in an instant into ‘not me guv’ (The Second Law of Brexit). You have to give him credit here; it requires a kind of talent and bravado to carry it off, without a single blush.
I noticed that ….
Note that Britain has now taken out the offending clauses before Johnson flies to Brussels, within two days of the House of Commons voting to put the clauses back in; after the House of Lords had voted to take them out; which, in turn was after the House of Commons had voted for the clauses on ‘second reading’ of the Internal Market Bill (IMB), including the Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross and his small group of MPs; and now has been overruled by his own PM.
The clauses have been removed by the British because it is quite obvious they were never more than a sardonic negotiating chip to offer the EU; a sacrificial offering in the execution of cynical ploy. Why then use it at all, since it is so monstrous it has to be sacrificed, and would cause Britain more grief afterwards, throughout the world than could be sustained? Because the British wanted to be able to offer a worthless concession (which is so monstrous it isn’t even a concession), that looked like something important (but only to the ill-informed, or cynical Brexit electors back home), and only to be offered at the last moment; in order to be able very publicly to demand the EU also concede something – when all the EU could concede is a matter of substance. The calculated imbalance in ‘concession’ is transparent, both to the EU and the world beyond the wholly insular caricature of sense or sovereignty that Brexit Britain has become. The IMB offending clauses are thus no more than a sham and a scam. At worst, if the PM doesn’t bluster his way to a deal, the oven-ready British tactic is simply to blame the EU for the failure to do a deal, appealing to their supporters back home that they even offered a major concession. That is the brazen tactic, solely to manufacture the required optics for the home audience (it doesn’t rise to ’strategy’); the EU doesn’t come into the matter.
If a deal is done, Britain will still almost certainly have to make further concessions, because surrendering the offending IMB clauses does not ‘cut-it’ with the EU, they were already discounted in the ‘bad faith’ bin; because the EU already know it is a scam.
Notice also that the Government has already ruined Britain’s reputation. Playing publicly to the worst dispositions of your supporters is a secret transaction. Not only has Britain revealed to the whole world something about the character of the State; demonstrating that it is quite prepared to break its word, its treaty obligations and international law in a trade negotiation, and for advantage; but in order to camouflage this appalling scam it has also reduced the processes of Parliament itself to a complete mockery. It is an illusion to think that all this theatre is completely repaired in the world’s eyes, by a volte face over the Internal Market Bill. Too late: being found out is not an excuse.
And all that, dear friends is “our precious Union” in a nutshell.
“Playing publicly to the worst dispositions of your supporters is not a secret transaction.”
Apologies – again for hopeless typing/editing.
Nobody voted for No Deal.
In fact, the opposite was in play on this exact date last year, if memory serves me right. The General Election, 9 December 2019. Boris promised there was a deal already in the bag. Remember?
Nobody voted for No Deal. Ever. Because it was never on the ballot.