If the light at the end of the tunnel is the burning wreckage of our future...

I am, by nature, an optimist. When the Brexit referendum was lost, I not unreasonably assumed that the victors had a plan for getting us from being in the European Union to not being in the European Union. I admit that, even then, I understood that the various strands of the Leave campaign were mutually incompatible and were merely a means of persuading enough voters to back their cause. Indeed, Dominic Cummings acknowledged that there was no one vision of Brexit that could achieve majority support, or even agreement between the different factions. It allowed them to be all things to a good many people, at least, enough to win a one-off vote on the right day.

It turned out that I was wrong. There was no obvious plan. However, these were clever people - mostly - and there was time to work up a plan before formal notice was given. And, because, regardless of what I think about them, they would have what they perceived to be the interests of the country at heart.

Again, it turned out that I was wrong. It became apparent that it was much easier to campaign against something than to develop a strategy and plan for something - that mutual incompatibility thing again. Add an emerging lack of knowledge in terms of how the European Union works and a soupcon of "two world wars and one World Cup" and the foundations were laid for failure. After all, we'd heard enough from experts...

Blithe confidence in your cause, plus a rather arrogant sense of stature in the world led to the triggering of the exit process. Unfortunately, knowing what you want and having a realistic awareness of what you might get are not exactly the same thing. And, setting a deadline tends to work better if you're the 800 lb gorilla in the room. When you're 65 million people, as opposed to 430 million, with a GDP of $3 trillion, as opposed to $14 trillion, the gorilla isn't you.

And so, here we are, the clock nearly run down, a United Kingdom government led by people chosen for their loyalty rather than intellect, and in the middle of a pandemic. The Prime Minister has announced that we need to plan for a no deal outcome, demanding concessions from the gorilla. It all seems unlikely.

We are therefore dependent on one of two things - major concessions from the European Union (which might politely be described as unlikely) or from the United Kingdom. Can the Conservative Party really offer serious concessions without looking to its supporters as though it has bended the knee? And, even if it could agree on concessions, what might those concessions be, would they be sufficient and what would they gain? I don't think that they know, let alone the rest of us.

So, let's assume that they're serious, and that we reach 1 January without a deal. What might happen? And that's a bit of a mystery, given that the ultras on both sides are offering us just about everything on the spectrum from "buccaneering Singapore-on-Thames" to "critical food and medicine shortages".

My gut feeling is that things will be worse than they are now. Putting up obstacles tends to do that - the question is, how significantly will day to day life be affected, and what is the tolerance of a fickle public for inconvenience or hardship? Polling indicates a gradual drifting away of support for Brexit, associated as it is with a government which is making a mess of handling one crisis already. How much of a sacrifice are those who supported Brexit willing to make? Or were they only content so long as it was others who would bear the brunt?

And any Government would have public sympathy if things were difficult, so long as they were seen to be trying to do the right thing. This Government isn't in that place, having wasted an entire summer, at vast expense, to achieve, effectively, nothing.

I remain an optimist. Admittedly, as a Liberal Democrat, you tend to need to be one. Unfortunately, my optimism increasingly fades in terms of the near future - you really need something to sustain faith, and Messrs Johnson, Gove and Cummings just don't fit the bill. I'm also a gradualist, a believer in sustainable change over decades, and I'm going to have to pin my hopes on that. Because something is going to have to change in this country, and someone is going to have to lead that change.

In the meantime, it's time to circle the wagons, look out for those I care about and focus on the things I can actually influence...

Margaret Thatcher might not recognise this set of Tories...

Brexit is difficult - as a bureaucrat, I get that. There are a whole series of competing demands, made yet more challenging by the existence of a series of red lines that constrain the range of solutions yet create even more problems.

Is this the best deal that could be obtained given Theresa May’s stubborn, if inconsistent, stance on met inward migration? It possibly is, though that in itself is hardly a convincing reason for agreeing to it. After all, she was the Home Secretary who failed to keep even non-EU migration under the global 100,000 target she arbitrarily set. She couldn’t even persuade her own colleagues that it was credible or viable.

And let’s set aside the foolishness of setting a target in isolation of the needs of the economy.

But it is a deal that nobody wants. For those demanding control/sovereignty, it actually subjects from our influence level, taking away our votes at European Council and Parliament, whilst requiring us to adhere to the terms of trade agreements and directives. In terms of democratic accountability, it is an outrage. Young Rees-Mogg and his Committee for the Eighteenth Century have every reason to reject it. As for the Free Traders, they have less than they had before. At least our interests were represented...

For those who want to control our borders, and hadn’t noticed that we were outside Schengen, the fact that we have never lost our right to limit those coming into the country from beyond the EU, and have chosen not to do so (and I again turn towards you, Theresa), seem not to be particularly interested in defining why we need to get be up a bunch of rights in order to do something we could already do. Indeed, whilst they’re abundantly clear about what they want in the generality, the specifics are somewhat lacking. In those terms, the deal on offer offers little specificity. I’d be intrigued to see the net migration figure for the European Union, suspecting as I do that it isn’t that high.

And so, it’s all about Project Fear. No, not about what happens if we leave, but now about what happens if we don’t leave at all, or if we don’t sign up to the deal on offer. If we leave without a deal, we are told that medicine supplies can’t be guaranteed, and that food rationing might be necessary. That isn’t exactly what the British people were promised. Blood, sweat and tears, possibly, but someone else, not mine - “There may be some setbacks along the way but, in the end, it’ll be worth it.”. If anyone was going to suffer, it wouldn’t be you and yours.

If we don’t leave, we are threatened with the emergence of far-right political forces. I dimly recall Margaret Thatcher facing down what she described as the far left, and any administration confident in its actions will do likewise with the far right. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”, she said. Chris Grayling evidently lacks that sort of will. He’ll find that the British people do. Besides, if your democracy is so vulnerable to a handful of extremists, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a hostage.

In a Parliamentary democracy, Parliament gets to decide. I, and the rest of the voting public, get to decide who makes up Parliament (albeit that the system for doing so sucks). Anything that gets passed by Parliament is, by extension, what we decide and, if we don’t like that, we can theoretically throw out the person we last sent and replace them with someone else. We don’t threaten the peace of the kingdom if we don’t get what we want.

So, Project Fear, Mark II, be damned. If Parliament allows itself to be cowed by a theoretical threat of violence, our country is far more screwed than any impact of Brexit. And for the likes of Chris Grayling, a reminder - it was a democratic process which put you where you are, and you’re not willing to defend it, you ought to step aside for someone who will.

The utter confidence of “Everybody knows that...”

I’ve been arguing on Twitter today. Yes, I know, a complete waste of time for the most part, but it keeps my mental agility intact, and gives me a better understanding of what, and how, other people think.

The argument is about fishing rights in the North Sea, not a subject I claim expertise on, but I know a little. So, when someone claims that hill farmers don’t matter because, post-Brexit, we’ll have a hugely expanded fishing industry, my sense of scepticism was triggered.

Let’s put aside the bizarre notion that all those bankrupt hill farmers can be retrained as offshore fisherman, and consider the claim, “we have 60% of the North Sea and after Brexit, wouldn’t have to share the fish therein with anyone”. My adversary started by suggesting that we share the North Sea with Norway. That wasn’t a great start, as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands all have North Sea coasts. And, of course, fish move (sneaky devils that they are). My new friend ignored that point but, when pressed, was relaxed about the ability of the Norwegians to hoover up most of the cod as they migrate south, which rather makes you wonder what fish might be left for British fisherman to catch.

I perhaps naively assume that fish stocks are a pooled resource, that the actions of one North Sea state impact on the others. Not according to my friend. Fish are a sovereign asset, he claims.

And on and on it went, with him making assertion after assertion, almost entirely unsupported by any evidence, until the argument, “my father was a trawler skipper in Grimsby” emerged. I can’t say that I was impressed. My father was highly successful in the advertising industry but I don’t claim any more than a superficial understanding of it.

But his certainty reminds me of the danger that being reasonable offers up. I am open to doubt about the impact of Brexit in various parts of the economy, because whilst any action may have consequences, a sensible government can mitigate against them to some extent. That mitigation may in turn have consequences but to govern is to choose. If the Government were to invest money into the fishing industry, or negotiate a good deal with other countries, or, perhaps less likely, it turned out that North Sea fish were disproportionately found in British waters, the fishing industry might thrive. On the other hand, it might be impacted by tariffs set by its major customer (the European Union) or there might not be enough Britons who fancy the hard life that is that of an offshore fisherman, and be damaged.

The problem is that, increasingly, much of life is complex and interrelated, and rather than think about that, it’s easier to fall back in the “everybody knows” argument. So, for example, everybody knows that migrants get favourable access to council housing. You might polite question that, noting that local councils use a points-based system for determining eligibility and relative need, and ask if the person is aware of the local council’s criteria? Naturally, they won’t know, hardly anyone does, but that’s what they’ve been told so it must be true.

Everybody knows that the European Union is a hugely bureaucratic organisation, running roughshod over ordinary British people. The fact that, in order to have confidence over the fitness for consumption of, say, a sausage, or that I can obtain free access to healthcare in Plovdiv as I can in Ipswich, requires some jointly agreed rules, determined by a democratic body, is obvious when you think about it, but complex to explain in terms of nuts and bolts.

And sovereignty is not absolute. Everybody knows that, if we leave the European Union, we’ll be a sovereign nation again. The vast array of international bodies that the United Kingdom is a member of makes clear the lie of absolute sovereignty. Who elects the International Maritime Organisation, or NATO, or ICANN? Would direct elections make them more, or less, efficient or effective?

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you see the outside world as something to be feared, fought or worked with. As a liberal, I tend to the third option, but I understand that it requires a certain element of faith in your neighbours, and a willingness to pool sovereignty for mutual advantage. Otherwise, why would you sign treaties on anything?

But, if we are to get a second referendum (and I’m not confident that, even if we do, it will be won), we’re going to have to work really hard to make the case for working with our neighbours for mutual advantage, that the rights we gain as part of the European Union make our communities stronger, wealthier and more peaceful. Because everybody knows that the United Kingdom is the greatest country in the world, and we don’t need foreigners coming here and telling us what to do, right?

A reflection on the prospects of Parliament giving us a second referendum

I’m a democrat, which means that the public should get what it votes for. And whilst that also means that it gets to change its collective mind if it chooses to, the question of who decides how to test that is left with Parliament, within the limits of Parliamentary terms and the ability to form a government.

We have, it could be argued, the worst of all worlds - a government that has no majority except that lent to it by other parties, and unable to agree amongst itself as to the best course of action. At the same time, we have an Official Opposition that is in a similar state, with a leader whose personal convictions lead him to go along with the will of the people as expressed in June 2016 but whose party membership is overwhelmingly against that notion.

You do wonder how we got into this mess, and how we might extricate ourselves from it, one way or the other. Evidently, we need to find a way to a Parliamentary coalition in the Commons that can select a route out of the impasse and deliver it. But why might it be too difficult to achieve?

For Conservatives, the news that their membership is overwhelmingly in favour of a stance - no deal - which is so contrary to the polling of the public at large is a reminder that, if you’re an MP with a job for life, as is the case for my two local Conservatives, Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) and Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich), your private thoughts on the sensibility of crashing out without a deal must be tempered by the possibility that you’ll be deselected if you try to take a different path. It is the ultimate country versus party versus career dilemma and whilst, for non-politicians, the answer might seem obvious, if you sacrificed so much to become an MP in the first place, might you so easily walk away from that?

I’d like to think that I would, but my views and the views of my Party are not so conflicted that, were I to be put in that situation, I would be as troubled.

And we must assume that the likes of Jo Churchill and Dan Poulter are deeply conflicted. They did campaign for Remain prior to the referendum, so presumably thought that we were better off staying in the European Union - let’s assume that they were sincere because the alternative is too ghastly to countenance.

And there is a strong tendency amongst most Conservative MPs to be loyal to the Leader, at least as long as the Leader has power and patronage, which for all the criticism of Theresa May, she still has following her survival of the vote of no confidence last month.

As for Labour, so many of their MPs represent seats which voted to leave that they appear as rabbits stuck in the headlights. Given how divisive the issue has become, and the division at the top of the party, which way do you jump, especially if your Constituency Labour Party is a Corbyn fan club? And, whilst opinion may have shifted nationally (if polls are to be believed), has it shifted that much in places where the benefits of European Union membership seem more esoteric?

Doing what is right, as opposed to what is best personally, isn’t as obvious a call as you might like to think, especially when the consequences are personal rather then philosophical.

For Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, Liberal Democrats and Greens, the dilemma doesn’t exist for the most part - they represent more outward-looking communities who see the value of European integration. It’s a pity that there are only fifty or so of them out of six-hundred and fifty...

For what we are about to give up, may we be truly nervous...

Malta is the smallest Member State of the European Union, just 122 square miles in area, with a population of about 400,000, on the frontier between Europe and Africa. On its own, fairly insignificant, especially now that there is peace in Europe and the North African states pose little threat. But the Maltese mostly agree that membership of the European Union is a good thing.

Our taxi driver on Thursday evening noted that, prior to joining, Maltese emigration was to the distant Commonwealth - Canada and Australia, as well as the United Kingdom. Now, young Maltese can travel to Europe in search of opportunity. And the reverse is true. Our Dutch tour guide, whose partner she described as her Maltese knight, or our Estonian waiter in Mdina, who had come with his girlfriend to gain an experience of another culture and whose parents had already moved to Malta.

For what they have is freedom, the freedom to explore new cultures, to meet new people and, perhaps, fall in love with them, to have a choice of where they might put down roots, raise a family, build a career or launch a business.

It is that freedom that the referendum vote risks taking away from our young people.

I accept that, if you are happy and settled where you are, or even unhappy and fearful for your prospects, the idea of upping sticks and moving somewhere where they speak another language, or have different customs might seem entirely irrelevant. But even if you don’t intend to use the rights you have, one wonders why you might be so relaxed about taking them away from others, especially if there is no obvious loss to you if they do use them.

It’s a bit like holding an entire generation hostage in order to quell your fears.

Of course, you have to appreciate that there is a risk of loss, and I keep hearing stories of people who voted for Brexit, knowing that they intended to retire to Cyprus, or Spain, assuming that the ending of freedom of movement was only directed into the United Kingdom - it wouldn’t affect them. It’s that good old fashioned (predominantly) English exceptionalism at play again.

My patriotism is that of someone who believes that my country is a good one, able to influence world affairs, outward-looking and confident, but it seems that it’s a form of patriotism that is out of fashion. The preferred versions being either a more fearful one, where foreigners are a threat or a burden, or a delusional one, where the world owes us not only a living, but a whole bunch of privileges that we need not reciprocate.

I fear that our nation will find out the hard way that neither is sustainable in a multilateral world where trading blocs negotiate with each other rather than with individual nations, and where specialisation allows more effective use of scarce resource.

Of course, we could always change our minds, but as I noted yesterday, the route to a second referendum is a tortuous one, and time, and the European Union’s patience, is beginning to run out...

ALDE Party Congress 2018 - “ne me quitte pas, ne me quitte pas, ne me quitte pas...”

Jacques Brel, one of the great Belgian performers, sang of his sense of despair and loss at the end of a relationship, of the desperation with which men would try to resuscitate a dying romance they had destroyed by their own failures. And, whilst our relationship with Europe is in danger of reaching a depressing end through the failures of others, the sense of despair and loss is not dissimilar for some of us.

And so, at the end of an ALDE Party Congress which saw the adoption of a manifesto for European Parliamentary elections we probably won’t be fighting, and the creation of a leadership team for a campaign that will pass us by, what have we learned?

1. Europe, and even our liberal colleagues, are preparing to move on without us. Yes, they are sympathetic to our own desire to stay and engage, but there are some who, to be blunt, would rather have Brexit just happen than allow a protracted process and the resultant instability to distract from the serious business of reforming Europe, its economy and its institutions. We are pitied as much as we are respected for our history and our contribution in years past.
2. ALDE is torn between those who are proud to be liberals and those who see the advantages of using words like “progressive” and “centrist”, the latter looking to build a bigger tent, a more effective (or powerful) political gathering, bringing in the likes of En Marche. That tension expresses itself as much through strategic considerations as opposed to policy ones - any pan-European manifesto is inevitably drafted as to allow a degree of designed flexibility of interpretation.
3. The balance of power in the ALDE Party is shifting eastwards and southwards, with Bureau members now from Spain, Slovenia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. There are Liberal Prime Minsters in Estonia, Finland and Slovenia too, and Liberal Commissioners from Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic. The new Europe means a new ALDE Party.
4. The apparent current weakness of the two historically powerful blocs in European politics - the Socialists and the Christian Democrats - offers the potential to change the dynamics of the Parliament, as both blocs lose support to the extremes at one end and, in moving to retain those voters, to the Greens and Liberals from their more moderate supporters. That leads to the emergence of co-operation between groups whose policy platforms have sufficient overlap.

The potential, both for growth of influence, and for a blurring of philosophy, is there, and in years gone by, Liberal Democrat’s would have been at the heart of the debate. That, sadly, is no longer the case.

And, if Brexit goes ahead, we will lose our right to vote or speak on future manifestos, or to vote for Spitzenkandidaten, leaving us amongst the Moldovans and Armenians in terms of status if not, perhaps, in terms of influence. It will not be the same, and the transition may be an uncomfortable one.

Ne me quitte pas, ALDE Party, ne me quitte pas, ne me quitte pas...

Yes, Liam, international trade is much more complex than you thought...

The news that Russia has formally objected to United Kingdom proposals to divide the current quotas between the two according to the historical flows of trade in each product comes, sadly, as little surprise to anyone who has been paying attention all along.

In any negotiation where you seek to alter existing arrangements as a supplicant with a ticking clock, you start at a disadvantage. The other side can simply wait it out, knowing that, as your cliff edge gets closer, you’ll get more desperate, thus more likely to offer a good deal. Now under normal circumstances, that’s not a good place to be, but when you’ve put your entire economy on the line, it’s a pretty desperate affair.

Now, if you’ve got something great to offer, and demand is high, you might get away with it. Alternatively, if your negotiators are very good, and have a firm grasp of the potential options, the damage might be restricted.

We do make some pretty good stuff, but it isn’t unique, and it can for the most part be made elsewhere. As for negotiators, we have Liam Fox. You might suggest that we’re utterly screwed. I might not necessarily disagree with you.

Incompetence, combined with an astonishingly high level of ignorance and entitlement, has brought us to this state of affairs whereby, on 29 March, we will  possibly leave the European Union without any agreements on tariffs or access to markets. We have insulted some potential partners, i.e. Moldova, we’ve taken others for granted, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and we’ve placed our faith in the likes of Donald Trump who will unhesitatingly shaft any potential trading partners for votes in Wisconsin or Indiana.

I take no joy in this, have no grim sense of “you get what you deserve”, for the worst affected will not be those whose idea this was, but too many of those who were persuaded to vote for it. Asking people simplistic questions on hugely complex subjects is seldom productive, but you should reasonably be able to assume that those asking the question, and particularly those espousing a particular answer, would have an understanding of the issues themselves.

As it turned out, neither of those assumptions could be relied upon. The Brexiteers have demonstrated that they really didn’t understand how the European Union worked, possibly because that might have caused them to think a bit harder, but worse still they had, and seem to still have, an astonishingly naive sense of Britain’s place in the world and a complete disregard for how Britain’s reputation abroad has become degraded since June 2016.

You can hardly blame the Great British Voter for what happened next.

And now we see the rush from accountability. An EEA option has emerged, already ruled out by Theresa May’s red lines, lines drawn to keep the Brexiteers onside and her in power. Ruling out a role for the European Court of Justice, ruling out freedom of movement, even with the provisions available for use, disregarding the Good Friday Agreement as an issue, despite it being a binding international treaty.

Alternatively, it’s the fault of those pesky Remainers, despite the fact that the European Union is negotiating with the United Kingdom Government, and nobody else.

There’s an irony here. I’d taken the view after the referendum that, whilst hating the outcome, you couldn’t really tell how bad it was going to be. Sensible people start off with a negotiating position which evolves as facts emerge and compromises become necessary. And, whilst the Brexiteers were wrong, they weren’t stupid.

Unfortunately, as time passed and the likes of Boris Johnson and David Davis exposed their lack of skill and knowledge, as the significance of the red lines became more and more apparent, as Theresa May painted herself, and the country, into a smaller and smaller corner, it dawned on me that they believed their own hype and that, unless they were stopped, we were screwed.

It’s going to take an series of acts of astonishing altruism on the part of our trading partners to salvage something. And that ain’t going to happen, because such things only happen in fairy tales, or in Liam Fox’s dreams...

Brexit - the land border that nobody seems to be talking about...

There’s only one land border for the United Kingdom to consider in its negotiations with the European Union, right? And, admittedly, it’s a serious problem, courtesy of the Good Friday Agreement.

Ah, but what about Gibraltar? Yes, it’s a very short border, with only one crossing point, but for the Gibraltarians, dependent on 10,000 Spanish workers to fulfil a whole range of economic activity, anything that adds grit to the carefully oiled machine is of serious concern.

There is, however, one more rather more complicated land border, that of the Sovereign Bases in Cyprus. Akrotiri is relatively simple, in that it is an enclave with the Republic of Cyprus to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the south. Dhekelia is more complex, as it cuts the Republic in half, and you have to cross it if you’re travelling from Larnaca or Nicosia to, say, Ayia Napa.

And, even more interestingly, Dhekelia has a border with the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, which has a status all of its own, inside the European Union but not really. And there’s a border crossing there, effectively an external land border of the European Union, and the only one that the United Kingdom has responsibility for.

It struck me that we’ve heard very little about this, despite the fact that it’s a pretty serious business for the Cypriots, and I asked Ros if it had come up at all. She hadn’t heard anything, so said that she would ask her noble friend, John Sharkey, who knows a fair bit about Cyprus. It turned out that he didn’t know either, which led to a Written Question;

To ask Her Majesty's Government what changes they anticipate will be needed to the arrangements for crossing the border between the Cypriot UK Sovereign Bases and the Republic of Cyprus after the UK leaves the EU; what preparations are being made to make any such changes; and what discussions they have had with the EU and the Republic of Cyprus on the issue.

The answer, from Lord Callanan, was not entirely reassuring...

The UK and the Republic of Cyprus are engaged in ongoing constructive discussions on the future of the SBAs. We aim to ensure that those living and working in the SBAs, in particular the 11,000 Cypriot residents, are not adversely impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We are confident that an agreement can be reached which respects the Treaty of Establishment, and safeguards both the lives of citizens, and the effective military functioning of the bases.

It appears not to consider the impact on Cypriots living at the eastern end of the Republic, and you can’t help but wonder if their Government might not want to extract some concessions in return for support for whatever deal emerges. If I was in their shoes, I probably would...

Is there a best time to take a position if you know that doing so will cost you support?

The Labour frontbench’s decision not to support a Liberal Democrat amendment which would hold open membership of the Single Market was an interesting one. If, as is reported, it was simply an attempt to keep the option on the table, then one might reasonably argue that, by allowing it to be defeated, Labour reduced their own wriggle room in the eventuality that they become the Government.

And they’re entitled to do that, if they see that it is to their political advantage.

But, as a political party seeking to gain the support of those voters who wish to remain in the European Union, it might be a risky strategy. Yes, the options available to Remain voters are quite limited in many ways - the Conservatives and UKIP are obviously ruled out, the Greens and Liberal Democrats are too far back to be credible alternatives in many places just now - but that might not last.

Which brings me to my original question. Labour can, for now, get away with not really taking a clear view on Britain’s future inside or outside the European Union. With the Government displaying quite astonishing levels of incompetence and unreliability, merely not being them makes Labour look better than they might otherwise do. But, at some point, if they get into power (and it shouldn’t be ruled out as the implications finally dawn on the Conservatives that Brexit is not going to be easy, cheap or painless, or even what any of them want), they’re going to have to take a stance.

Less than three weeks ago, I was at a conference of the Save Romania Union, a new political party, who have gone through some teething pains. Having formed as an anti-corruption, pro-reform, pro-European Party, as they have formed a set of working principles, they have lost some of their initial supporters, who don’t want to adhere to those principles, or at least, some of those principles. As policy decisions are taken, you lose people who don’t like that particular choice.

And Labour have the same problem. Take a clear stance on membership of the Single Market, and you risk losing either the support of left-wing Eurosceptics, or of young, pro-Remain, voters. Similarly with the Customs Union, or freedom of movement. But, if you don’t have a clear stance going into Government, you’re not likely to make a good fist of negotiating with the European Union, who do know what it is they are trying to defend.

There’s a possible election to be fought and won,  preferably with the aid of an army of young, committed activists, who may not be quite so committed if they think that Labour are a pro-Brexit party at heart.

So, Labour are in a bind. They need to gain and retain as much support as they can to get elected, but risk early disenchantment of those supporters at the very time they will need loyalists most. What is a political party to do?...

Brexit: Parliament sticks it to the (wo)man...

This Parliamentary democracy thing is an interesting concept, isn’t it? The idea that we, the people, after a campaign in which candidates attempt to persuade us to support them and their ideas, send our chosen tribune to Westminster to listen to arguments and sift data before taking the decisions that affect our lives seems like quite a good one.

Of course, this is the theory. It relies on a number of increasingly heroic assumptions;

1. That voters actually have an open mind.
2. That candidates tell the truth, or are at least honest about the options.
3. That media coverage is objective.
4. That, once elected, Members of Parliament are not whipped like dogs.

Don’t laugh...

All of that said, our system of democracy contains a series of checks and balances that protect us - a neutral Civil Service, an independent judiciary - and which we can mostly rely upon to protect us from an over-mighty Executive.

And, occasionally, Members of Parliament act according to their conscience, as in last night’s vote on Amendment 7 to the EU Withdrawal Bill. In truth, one should really wonder about the 305, mostly Conservative, ones who concluded that Parliamentary sovereignty is only really necessary when they’re in opposition.

It’s funny really, in that I had rather more respect for those Brexiteers who purported to be most concerned about a loss of sovereignty. It is true that, in pooling sovereignty with others, you lose personal autonomy. If that loss is counterbalanced (or better) by benefits of various kinds, that is probably a decent trade-off. “Sovereignty” Brexiteers don’t believe that the benefits meet that test, and whilst I think that they’re wrong, it is at least an honourable argument.

At least, it was, until they were offered an opportunity to take a stand on the right of Parliament to have the final say. It turned out that they actually believe that Parliament is only sovereign if it agrees with them. Just like their concept of freedom, their belief in sovereignty turns out to be conditional, partial, incomplete.

In other words, in order to deliver something they want, they are willing to sacrifice the very principle which underpinned their stance on Brexit. It’s hardly an edifying stance...

Meanwhile, my Conservative MP, Jo Churchill, clearly doesn’t believe that she should be allowed a say on the terms, and trooped loyally through the lobbies as per instructions, despite her stated support for remaining in the European Union.

Brexit may well continue to its fruition, the rebel Tories may decide to back the deal in the end, but at least tonight, we saw the Executive thwarted and a glimmer of democracy return to the Mother of Parliaments. And a damned good thing too...

What does my Conservative MP think about Brexit?

It’s a genuine question, borne out of a degree of frustration.

You see, during the Referendum campaign, she was in favour of remaining. As she noted, 53% of the region’s exports go to the European Union...

https://twitter.com/jochurchill4/status/743030654653325312

and the European Union is a vital source of research funding...

https://twitter.com/jochurchill4/status/743069710376374273

It provides security...

https://twitter.com/jochurchill4/status/743414048922939392

And voting remain was a vote for East Anglia!

https://twitter.com/jochurchill4/status/745958096854487041

And so, on 23 June 2016, she voted to remain. So far, so consistent.

It didn’t take her long to bend to the supposed will of the British people though... On 27 June, she wrote;

As many of you will know, I campaigned to remain within the European Union. I am proud to say that whilst I am personally devastated at the decision this country has come to, it is my duty as your Member of Parliament to respect the democratic decision of St Edmundsbury, Suffolk and the UK on the whole, to leave the European Union

Yes, it took her just four days to decide that the will of 52% of those who had voted, was enough for her to conclude that, no matter how bad an idea it was, she was going to respect it. The fact that it was bad for the country, its economy and its people was clearly not sufficient for her to challenge the new orthodoxy. Perhaps the fact that her local association’s members were probably significantly pro-Brexit might have been a factor.

And, since then, she has consistently entered the lobbies for the Government, not a word out of place, not a whisper of discontent.

So, has she changed her mind, and if so, why, beyond the “will of the people” I hear so much about? She seemed pretty certain prior to 23 June.

Alternatively, she is simply supporting the view of the Government, regardless of what that view is, even if it is contrary to her previously expressed views, which leads you to ask how important her principles are as opposed to the needs of her Party.

And then, there’s the alternative that I’d rather not believe, that her pro-remain stance was simply because it was that of the then Government, and now that the Government’s view has changed, she is simply shadowing it, in which case, how sincere is she?

Now I don’t dislike Jo Churchill. Yes, she’s a Conservative MP, but she seems harmless enough in the generality. I don’t approve of her voting record much, but then, I am a Liberal Democrat and would make different, hopefully better, choices. Her Twitter feed is full of congratulations for various local voluntary groups, many of whom are carrying out tasks that were once done by Government (and might still be better done at one or other tier of government). She does not dissent, repeats whatever the line of the day is from Conservative Party HQ faithfully, doesn’t rock the boat. She’s a bit ‘identikit Tory’, but our modern politics does seem to drive out personality.

But it is the job of our MP to seek the best outcome for her constituents and for the country, and that means asking the difficult questions and taking a stand based on her principles from time to time, and far from being a critical friend, as she claimed she would be, she has become mere lobby fodder, to be relied upon without question.

That’s a pity, as I strongly suspect that she entered into politics to make people’s lives that bit better, as most of us did. But principles matter, Jo, and as far as Brexit goes, you appear to have sold yours too cheaply.

She’s not alone though. All seven Suffolk MPs, all Conservatives, campaigned to remain. And although Ben Gummer lost his seat in June, not one of them has even been rumoured to have questioned the Government’s strategy or direction. 

If it was wrong and bad eighteen months ago, ladies and gentlemen, it is wrong and bad now. And if you have any reason for supporting it now beyond “the will of the people”, perhaps you’d like to enlighten us. For when the story of Brexit is written, it will not be the ardent Brexiteers who will be blamed - they at least were consistent in their beliefs - it will be those of you who knew it was wrong, but went along with it anyway, who will have betrayed our nation and its people.

Was that what you went into politics for?

The problem with Europe is that it’s really quite complicated...

So, another ‘big vote’ and, again, the Labour front bench vote with the Government. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, given Jeremy Corbyn’s ambivalence, at best, over the concept of Britain as being part of a European Union.

Europe is, after all, a useful thing to have to blame for things not being as you’d like. From a socialist perspective, you’re never going to get a socialist Europe, especially given the poor performance of Labour’s sister parties in such places as France, Germany and the Netherlands. Mainstream socialism appears to be being usurped by more ‘authentic’ left wing movements, such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and the populists such as Jean-Luc Melenchon in France. One could argue that Labour’s resurgence here is down to their move to the left, although given the incompetence of the Conservatives, and their adoption of a stance likely to be unpopular with young voters and those born after the sixties, that may not be lasting.

So, you have a Conservative Party committed to leaving, with a membership base predominantly supportive, and a Labour Party whose elected representatives are not so sure but who defer to their leader, even if they don’t really believe in him, who also wants to leave. His membership believe in him rather more than they believe in Europe, it seems.

How then, can the argument that remaining in the European Union is the right thing to do be won?

Ironically, the modus operandi of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords may offer a solution, albeit a long-term rather than a short-term one. Asking questions requires ministers to either think about the answers, or to get someone to do so on their behalf. What research has been done on the impact of Brexit on X, or Y? What analysis has been done on this element or that?

In other words, cast doubt on the Conservative’s big idea. Support them on the nature of any future relationship where we agree, and arguing for alternatives where we don’t. Make the case for working together on justice issues such as Europol, or on fishing arrangements in the North Sea, which we’re going to have to co-ordinate with the other states with territorial waters there in any event.

At the moment, we seem to be joining in the yah boo politics, when we should be the grown ups in the room. We should be talking about the issues, highlighting our philosophical approach to internationalism and sovereignty, as well as our understanding that, by pooling defined degrees of sovereignty in return for equally defined benefits, we make the country wealthier and stronger. It’s ultimately about working with others for mutual advantage not, as the Conservatives see it, a world where you become richer by seeking advantages over your neighbours, regardless of the global arrangements.

We also need to explain that capitalism works, as long as you have a strong and effective regulatory framework, designed to balance the needs of consumers and producers. And yes, it’s complex. Using very simplistic arguments has got us to where we are now, and you can’t really claim that it’s a good place, can you?

You can criticise the voters, but they were given a data rich, fact poor information environment, where one side traded in untruths that were never intended to be cashed in, and the other focussed on an almost apocalyptic picture of a post-Brexit Britain. And, eventually, someone is going to have to treat them like adults, explaining how international trade deals work, how sovereignty is not complete or absolute, how some problems and challenges are better faced together.

If we want to persuade former Leave supporters to openly change their views, you have to bring them along with you through persuasion and the casting of honest doubt. It’s time that we started on that task...

So, where has the lying stopped, and just how many ministers are implicated?

It seems as though the Secretary of State for Brexit may have been wilfully inaccurate in his statements to Parliament, to the media, and to the public. Either impact assessments have been made, as he claimed on multiple occasions, or they haven’t, as he claimed before the Brexit Select Committee yesterday morning. Both statements cannot be true, unless one stretches the definition of truth in the manner of saltwater taffy.

Fine, it should be a hanging offence, especially for a Government whose assertions of taking back control emphasise the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty. And whilst the Conservative/DUP majority can prevent a formal censure, if David Davis fails to do the honourable thing, and isn’t sacked, the level of misconduct required to end a ministerial career reaches new depths. Given that it seems almost impossible to get sacked by Theresa May, that’s going something.

But, it leads to the question, “who else is lying?”. After all, various junior ministers in DExEU have referred to these mythical sectoral analyses, claiming to have read some, or part, of them. Theresa May herself has apparently read some, or part, of them. And yet they don’t exist.

Perhaps the likes of Steve Baker, Robin Walker and, yes, Theresa May, should be called in and asked to swear, under oath, to the veracity of their earlier statements. Because, whilst lying about policy is one thing (morally and ethically unacceptable though it might be), on the grounds that you don’t necessarily know what the impact of any particular decision might be, telling people something that you know to be untrue undermines our demos to the point where the public have every right to loathe politicians even more than they purport to do currently.

The referendum was won on the basis of a series of big lies - £350 million per week for the NHS, Turkish accession to the European Union, remaining in the Single Market, to name but three - and it seems as though there are elements of the Government who have lied their way through the negotiations.

Yes, they may win the war in terms of Brexit, but if you were a potential trading partner, or a regional bloc, could you really negotiate a trade deal with a country whose senior politicians demonstrate such disregard for the truth? You might, with the right safeguards, but you’d be very cautious.

This Government has, in two years, trashed our reputation in the wider world. Increasingly, our friends think that we’ve lost our collective marbles, and our enemies relish our discomfort. We will pay a price for that over time, although I suspect our poor and vulnerable will bear much of the cost. But, as I’ve often said in the past, credibility is hard won and easily lost, and you wouldn’t fancy Boris and David to help that much.

So, we’ll see if the truth comes out, and what the punishment will be, if any. For the Conservatives have to understand that, if you allow your people to show such disregard for the truth, you can hardly be surprised when your enemies do the same thing. And complaining is unlikely to meet with much sympathy…

If Brexit goes badly wrong, how can the Tories survive the experience?

Let's start with the obvious caveat here, i.e. that Project Fear turns out to be Project Fact, and that the British economy splutters to, at best, a halt or, at worst, begins to go into reverse gear. For, if Brexit creates the bold new future that we were promised, the Conservatives will be in power for a while yet.

But let's say that negotiations drag on, as the dawning realisation emerges amongst the Cabinet that there will need to be some compromises, and that the apparently simple turns out to be hideously complex - the Irish question, seamless access for U.K. Goods into the European Union and vice versa, all of the "human" elements, to name but the already obvious ones.

How do the Conservatives keep the show on the road? Compromise will anger the Brexit ultras, especially if the European Court of Justice continues to have a role, or payments to the European Union continue after we formally leave. And that's just the sovereignty campaigners. Will those who voted Leave to send the foreigners home, or at least stop more from coming, tolerate tens of thousands coming to nurse our sick, serve our coffee, drive our buses or any of the vast array of tasks that European Union nationals do now, just because farmers, or universities, or publicans need them? Unlikely, I'd have thought. And as for the free traders, hoping for a newly invigorated Britain, trading our goods across the globe, be content to effectively allow the Europeans to determine our trading standards?

It is difficult to envisage how all of them will be kept happy, although it always was if you gave it much thought. The Leave campaign was always pretty clear about what it was against, whilst at the same time, unable to espouse anything else that it agreed upon.

But, if the compromises are made, and it still goes wrong, who will stand by the people whose negotiation skills led us to such a pass? The Remainers don't have any grounds to do so, and the ultras will want someone to blame - "they were betrayed" will be the narrative.

There is a way out. It isn't a pleasant one, and the consequences could be bitter indeed, but it offers the ultimate opportunity to pass the buck, i.e. walk out of the negotiations without a deal and blame the evil Europeans. That would allow the Conservatives to fight a snap General Election with the Mail, the Sun and the Times waving the Union Jack and denouncing anyone who questions their actions as traitors to their country.

And yes, the impact on the economy would be awful - could the European Union sign a trade deal with the United Kingdom under such circumstances? - but it would buy the Conservatives more time in which things might turn around. Call it the Micawber strategy, if you like.

There are still those who believe that a deal can be cut, that with goodwill on both sides, rationality will produce something which both sides can present as a success. My fear is that the European Union's determination to ensure that leaving the Union is not seen as being attractive, and the seeming total incomprehension of leading Conservatives as to how Europe actually works, will lead to a point where a sensible compromise doesn't present itself.

And whilst the debate here appears solely predicated on what it good for Britain - and both Remainers and Brexiteers are guilty on that charge - the question of what is good for Estonia, or Greece, or Belgium, is completely ignored. And they've got votes... and a veto.

I have a bad feeling about this...

Did you ever have a sense that the Conservatives weren't quite so ready for an election?

The starting gun is fired, the commentariat are up and running, and there is a frenzy as everyone gets ready for the campaign ahead. Me, I've got things to keep me occupied, but I've still got time to think.

And I have an odd sensation that, whilst one could not envisage a better set of circumstances for a snap election - twenty points plus ahead in the polls, Opposition in apparent meltdown, no obvious domestic threat - there's something not quite right with the Conservative campaign. Don't get me wrong, a majority Conservative administration still seems 'bolted on', but amidst the shambolic start to the Labour campaign, there is a sense that the Conservatives weren't really oven ready.

For, ultimately, Brexit was won by a coalition of groups whose mutual interests beyond winning the vote were mutually contradictory. The free traders and the anti-migration lobby, the sovereignty campaigners and the racists cannot be reconciled, and Theresa May must either know that or be astonishingly naive, and I don't believe that for a moment. Thus, the preparation for a series of retreats after the desired majority is obtained, with the hope that, five years down the road, all will be forgiven and forgotten. That might turn out to be astonishingly naive.

In a campaign that will doubtless centre on Brexit, we still aren't clear what their position is. What are they intending to negotiate and why, what sort of Brexit do they really want? There has been little so far to suggest that they have any sense of the compromises that will (not might, will) be necessary to secure a good deal, nor is there much clue as to what they believe would be the implications of no deal. They certainly don't appear to be anything other than gung-ho about it.

On tax, there appears to be no firm commitment to hold tax rates as they are, and whilst as a pragmatist, I can see the attraction of leaving one's options open, I'm not sure that the totality of current Conservative support would agree. And, in fairness, why should they, given what they were promised?

A series of retreats have already been signalled - 'barista visas', quotas for agricultural workers, bankers, nurses and doctors, construction workers, students - which will only serve to disgruntle those who voted for Brexit to stop them coming. And, even if you make exceptions, are key sector migrants being offered enough security to make it worth coming? Anecdotal evidence suggests not. In any event, the slump in the value of Sterling makes it necessary to rethink the rates of pay on offer to make good the reduction in the value of earnings sent home.

The question is, is anyone capable of asking the right questions and, even if somebody is, is there anything willing to contemplate the answers? Labour are in a world of pain, conflicted on Brexit between those who see the European Union as a capitalist club of neo-liberals and the pragmatists who see Europe as a means of protecting their supporters from the worst excesses of the anti-regulation zealots of the Right. Jeremy Corbyn is never going to ask the right questions.

As for the Liberal Democrats, whilst it is interesting to see how much coverage they are getting already - it's almost as though the media are rediscovering them all over again - it is uncertain that they will elbow Labour out of the way to establish themselves as the real opposition. But with the Scottish Nationalists focussed on a second independence referendum, they may be the only credible challenge to Conservative hegemony.

No, I'm convinced that the next six weeks or so will serve to demonstrate exactly where Conservative weaknesses are for the next five years. Watch very carefully and take notes. They might be very useful one day...

And now, the end is near, and as we face the final curtain...

The votes took place, the Lords conceded... And then the murders began...

But seriously (and apologies to readers, but I felt that I ought to test a theory that's doing the rounds), we have reached the point of no return. Well, actually, we haven't, but that's another story. Let's just assume that we have for the time being. What happens next?

Of course, Theresa May formally notifies the invocation of Article 50 and negotiations for our departure commence. The EU Council meets to consider its negotiating stance, bringing together the divergent views of twenty-seven nations, all with their own red lines or issues of principle, whilst the European Parliament considers what it will or will not compromise on.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom negotiating position is a mystery. This is either because they're keeping their cards very close to their chest or, more likely, because they aren't able to agree on what it is. After all, is the priority sovereignty, or immigration, or what?

For the likes of Daniel Hannan and Tim Montgomerie, it's all about sovereignty, the freedom to determine our own destiny in a global economy. People like Daniel and Tim are keen for us to make new trading arrangements and escape the sclerotic bureaucracy that is the European Union. They've been pretty clear that an accommodation with the European Union in terms of trade would be preferable, the so-called Norway model. The problem is that they appear to be in a minority on the Brexit side.

For Nigel Farage and his mates, it's about English Nationalism. Frankly, he knows that the Scots and Northern Irish don't give a hoot for his narrow-minded view of the world. And given that the major urban centres weren't keen on Brexit, and that UKIP do relatively badly in areas with a high ethnic minority population, his anti-metropolitan elite schtick appeals to people who gain little tangible benefit from the global economy. Some of them are wrong about that, but in any event, just because you don't gain anything doesn't mean that you've lost something. But they're convinced that everything will be better if we raise the drawbridge and send the foreigners home. There are lots of people out there who think like that, a lot of them in areas that traditionally vote Conservative. For them, sovereignty is immersed in the immigration issue.

So, how does Theresa cater for both sets of demands? A series of lobby groups - farmers, financial sector, health care, hospitality - are all seeking special arrangements to allow migrants for their businesses, probably in excess of her stated target of 100,000, whilst a bunch of people with votes want her to send them all home.

There is talk of deals with Australia, Canada and New Zealand which, if concluded, would probably means death to swathes of our agricultural sector given their ability to produce food more cheaply than we can - land is cheap and plentiful, and they have economies of scale that we simply can't match. A cynic would suggest that the emphasis on countries that are overwhelming white is not an accident, but nevertheless...

And it seems to be being forgotten that, whist trade deals for manufactured goods are relatively straightforward, trade in services, which makes up much more of our trade, is much more difficult to negotiate. There are influential professional lobbies that aren't keen on competition, and it's much easier to erect barriers both legal and cultural.

This is not going to be easy. And the negotiators for the other side know that. They have time on their side, and a set of core principles that must be defended if the European Union is to survive intact. And we have... confusion and a divided nation.

There is no sign of compromise on this side of the Channel - the "winners" are sour in their victory, the "losers" despairing in their sense of loss and angry that the lies told during the campaign have gone mostly unpunished. And when the choice offered is so increasingly binary, compromise is rather less likely than sullen silence.

So, Brexiteers. You wanted it and now you've got it. Come back and let me know when you've decided what "it" is...

How do you solve a problem like Donald, Theresa?

It has been a bit of a train wreck so far, hasn't it? However, whilst the air of chaos that surrounds the new incumbent in the White House shows no signs of abating, he is getting a worrying amount done. And, if you're a European or even British, what he has done so far is cause for some perturbation.

On trade, whilst there are perhaps grounds for axing the Trans Pacific Partnership, in doing so the way he has, he has undermined key relationships in a volatile region, where China seeks to maximise its power, soft and hard. If the Japanese and the South Koreans, in particular, sense that America is not engaged, they will be obliged to take a more respectful stance towards China. And, from the perspective of his near neighbourhood, his ruthless jettisoning of TPP, and the attempts to bully Mexico, spell trouble for NAFTA.

It does not augur well for a UK/US trade agreement, does it?

Now I accept that Trump has expressed a desire to do a deal, and heaven only knows that the Brexiteers desperately want to believe that he means it, but the problem is that he has a history of making deals that end badly for the other party and, more worryingly, for a bunch of innocent bystanders too. If he can bully the other side, he will, especially when they're desperate. And boy, are we going to be desperate.

It is already becoming apparent that a number of key potential partners, India, China, Australia, for example, are happy to do deals, but that relative freedom of movement comes with any such arrangements. Can Theresa May get over her hang-ups over migration figures, and even if she can, what will those who voted Brexit to cut migration think about being poorer AND having a bunch of foreigners coming into the country?

So, 'white' countries it will have to be. An all encompassing deal with the 'evil' European Union seems unlikely, and Australia and New Zealand are relatively small economies far away. That only really leaves the America Firsters, led by a man with a hair trigger ego advised by a man who wants to bring everything down. That's certainly not a negotiation I would enter with confidence and, to make matters worse, we already run a trade surplus with the US. Donald won't like that.

Oh yes, we could cut a deal with the rather sclerotic Japanese economy, or try to sell agricultural goods to the Koreans, but you can see our options withering away unless we're willing to compromise. And that, it seems, the Brexiteers are uncomfortable with.

It does, potentially, get worse. If the trend towards regional blocs continues, being outside of them all may make you nimbler, but it also makes you lonely and vulnerable to protectionism. And, you may have to sacrifice parts of your social model if national wealth diminishes in real terms, or grows less strongly than it might otherwise have done. There'll be plenty of people who voted for Brexit who won't like that either.

Now, is Theresa lying awake at night worrying about this? I suspect not. The more charitable might suggest that, as she is a woman of principle, doing what she believes to be the right thing, she has no reason to worry. In any event, the Opposition are insipid, or fragmented, or too few in number to really hurt her. I have a nasty feeling that she doesn't have the imagination to work out how badly this could (and I emphasise could) end up. If she did, she certainly wouldn't be able to sleep easily at night.

No, a combination of the Administration's apparent retreat from the strong dollar, a headstrong President and his belief that deals should favour America, leaves the British trade team with a potentially very challenging assignment. And we're fielding Liam Fox.

We're doomed, aren't we?...