Brexit: in the dark


These are supposed to be local elections but, as far as the London media is concerned, this is "the first test of public opinion since last year's snap election".

That, of course, tells us a great deal about what is wrong with the political process. People should be electing their local representatives, on local issues, but there is not a lot of point as the essential elements of local government are dictated by Whitehall anyway. So the elections just become a rather inadequate proxy for the national game.

Meanwhile, Brexit - the thing that the national media should be following intensely - goes largely by default. Most of the journos don't understand the deeper issues and too many of them are so obsessed with their "customs" meme that they have lost the plot.

Everything is being seen through the prism of a mythical "customs union", placed front and centre in virtually every report. The obsession is polluting the information environment with an endless stream of unreadable dribble, contrasting unrealistic options offered by opposing sets of politicians who have in common only their profound ignorance of the way border controls work.

Small wonder that most journalists are more interested in the "biff-bam" of personality politics. It keeps them in their respective comfort zones and saves them the embarrassment of having to report on matters about which they know so little, leaving the bulk of the population to switch off and turn to more rewarding things.

One thing perhaps of interest, in the grander scheme of things, is the collapse of the Ukip vote. That, in itself, is an indictment of the baleful leadership of Farage, leaving the party unable to function at precisely the time it is sorely needed.

Had Ukip come away from the referendum with a credible plan for Brexit and the determination to keep the political classes focused, the situation might not be so very different but at least we would have had something to work with. As it is, the Brexit cause now lacks effective political leadership and the general secretary has likened his party to the black death.

As to the results overall, we are told that if they were applied at parliamentary level, the Conservatives would lose their ability to govern with the DUP, their only viable Brexit allies. If there is anything to take from that, we can conclude that Mrs May isn't quite as secure as some would like to believe.

Despite that, though, we have a report that foreign minister Johnson is claiming that the council elections were a victory for "his form" of Brexit, because the Conservatives had been successful in areas that backed "leave" in the referendum, something the Mail is playing big, calling for a "real" Brexit on its front page.

We are now told that "Brexiteers" (whatever they might be) plan to use the result to try to push Theresa May to support their plans, amid divisions among her cabinet over which path to take on a customs union".

However, when it comes to the main event, these elections are just another distraction – another few days taken out of the countdown where the attention is elsewhere. It wouldn't matter so much if the media were able to deal with more than one issue of consequence at a time, but the political hacks are mostly single issue people.

One small exception yesterday was an "exclusive" in the Guardian which acquaints us with a "leaked paper" drawn up by senior officials in the Northern Ireland executive.

This offers a potential way out for Number 10, with a "backup plan" to avoid hard land border with Ireland, suggesting what amounts to a "wet border" but with a light-touch regime that incorporates "green channels" which enable compliant traders to pass freely, avoiding any check or constraint on movement.

However, since regulatory divergence is not ruled out, it is "recognised" that keeping the border open on the island of Ireland will allow goods not compliant with EU or UK trade policy to move freely around the two jurisdictions.

What is worrying about this - from the perspective of the report - is that officials are arguing that "the same risk is tolerated to some degree in other contexts (e.g., between Switzerland and its EU neighbours)". It is thus held that "the commitment to support the all-island economy suggests that some degree of risk can be accepted".

This seems to betray a worrying lack of understanding of the Swiss system, which has a very high degree of regulatory alignment and a strong network of over 100 manned customs posts covering its 1000-plus mile border with its five neighbours.

Moreover, goods destined for Switzerland from outside the EU/EEA are checked at the EU's external borders, or at the customs posts serving Switzerland's international airports, and are permitted free circulation only on the grounds that apply to the Union as a whole. There is no possibility that Switzerland could become a back door into the Union in the way that an unguarded Irish border could easily become.

Typically of UK national newspapers, though, the Guardian conveys its story without critical appraisal but, from the look of it, this leaked report has nothing going it that could break the logjam. Yet, even this sounds promising compared with Mrs May's latest wheeze - having her government examining the operation of the US-Canadian border as a possible answer to the Irish question, with Dr Fox telling the BBC that it was "frictionless".

With such idiocy, that means that we are no further forward than we were last week, which puts us no further forward than we were when the negotiations started. And that's where, according to a story buried deep in The Times, Brexit is about to come crashing in on us.

Ireland, it appears, has secured the support of other EU leaders to the extent that, should Mrs May fail to come up with an acceptable solution by next month's European Council, they are prepared to block the next phase of discussions with the UK, on future trade relations, effectively collapsing the talks.

Far from there being a meeting of minds, however, it seems that the UK does not recognise the June European Council as a deadline. Yet, for all that, it is hard to see why this is even news. As recently as 29 April, Michel Barnier wrote an authored piece in the Irish Independent reaffirming - as he has done so many time – that there will be no Brexit deal unless Ireland is satisfied with the border settlement. The UK caused the problem in Ireland and the UK must solve it, he wrote.

And that problem isn't going to go away. The Irish Times makes that perfectly clear with its latest report telling us of: "Increasing pessimism in Dublin over prospects for Brexit talks". 

It repeats the Guardian's "exclusive" that Ireland is set to block negotiation on EU-UK trade deal "if no pact on the border issue" and then reports on Irish Government expectations of a shift in the British position having been dashed in recent days. Senior figures in Dublin have become more pessimistic about the prospects for a breakthrough before the June European Council, we are told.

The downbeat view in part stems from Mrs May's failure last Wednesday to get the approval of her cabinet colleagues to whatever scheme it was she had in mind for that day. But the real issue is that her "customs partnership" plan does not meet the expectations of either Dublin or Brussels. Not to anyone's surprise, it is thought to resemble previous British suggestions that have already been rejected.

What this adds up to, in the words of the Public Accounts Committee, is "pervasive uncertainty about the UK’s future relationship with the EU". That leaves not only Government departments but also businesses "in the dark" about exactly what they need to do to prepare for Brexit.

And that's where we all are at the moment – in the dark.

Richard North 05/05/2018 link

Brexit: fishing, a Pyrrhic victory


On its Brexit preparedness website, the European Commission has now published 60 of its "Notice to Stakeholder" series, the very latest referring to the effect of UK withdrawal on "EU rules on fisheries and aquaculture".

The first notice went up on 21 November last year but, despite their importance and the informative nature of the content, they have been largely ignored by the legacy media. Thus, when the Telegraph finally notices the last one, journalist James Rothwell calls it a "letter".

This "letter", Rothwell characterises as a "warning" to European fishermen that "they will have to ask Britain for permission before spreading their nets in its waters in a 'no deal' Brexit scenario".

Of course, this is not what the "Notice to Stakeholders" series is about. Specifically, the Notices are a response to the European Council's request to set out "the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union without a formal, ratified agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union".

As such, the series is as near as is possible a dispassionate, factual account, without embellishment – and noticeably without preachy "warnings".

Using less than 1,300 words (shorter than this blogpost) to state the position, the Commission's notice on fisheries starts with the simple statement that, subject to any transitional arrangements, as of the date we withdraw from the EU, "the Common fisheries policy rules no longer apply to the United Kingdom".

As to the consequences, these are set out in an entirely matter-of-fact tone, the first one of which on the Commission's list is that: "In accordance with international law of the sea, fishing vessels wishing to engage in fishing activities in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of a third country are required to obtain a fishing authorisation from that third country".

What that amounts to, as somewhat more luridly stated by Rothwell, is that boats carrying the flags of EU Member States, which were previously authorised to fish in UK waters under CFP provisions, will no longer be able operate – unless they have the specific permission of the UK government.

Should they obtain that permission, the fishing vessels will be "subject to applicable laws and regulations of the concerned coastal state [i.e., the UK] and hence may undergo control and enforcement activities carried out by the authorities of the coastal state concerned".

The implications of such a development are not stated in the Commission notice, but it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to work them out. Unless the UK government has been able to devise a fisheries management scheme – which it has not yet done – they can be summed up in a single word: "chaos".

Fisheries management schemes are not simple, especially in the waters surrounding the UK, where the proliferation of species, the environmental pressures and the competing demands on the resource create special problems. The situation is also exacerbated by historical relations with our neighbours, international law and the residual effects of the CFP – which have not as yet been defined.

Assuming a clear sheet (for the purpose of argument), even when EU-flagged boats are fishing in UK waters, the flag States are "responsible for diligently monitoring" the activities of vessels flying its flag, "to ensure that such activities do not undermine the sustainability of the stocks in the coastal state's waters and are consistent with applicable conservation rules of the coastal state".

Whether we can rely on, say, the Spanish government to monitor and control the activities of its flag boats is questionable, but that's what the Commission is saying must happen. Then there is an interesting rider, dressed up in EU legalese in the Notice to Stakeholders. It sends a huge broadside across the bows of HMS UK. 

Essentially, in the Notice, the Commission is reminding the UK government that it has a veto on applications by operators of Member State fishing vessels to fish in third country waters. There is in fact a formal procedure, where EU Member State flagged boats must be specifically authorised by the Commission to fish in UK waters. Without that authorisation, they cannot do so, even if they get permission from the UK authorities.

What this means is that, even should it have that in mind, there is no possibility of the UK doing separate deals on fishing with individual EU Member States. We must either deal with the Commission or not at all.

Predictably, UK vessels which have rights in the waters of EU Member States will no longer keep those rights. The Commission Notice states that access by third country vessels to Union waters "is subject to the authorisation procedure foreseen in Title III of Regulation (EU) 2017/2403". And that requires possession of an authorisation issued by the European Commission in accordance with Articles 32 to 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2403" They must also comply with the other requirements in that Title, notably Article 38 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2403".

Thus, there is no possibility either of the UK doing deals with Member States on reciprocal access. Once again, we deal with the Commission or not at all.

Despite that, even at the topmost political level, this is not understood. Thus we have the Guardian report of Mrs May visiting Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen. The two leaders, we are told, discussed fishing rights and May promised that Denmark, whose boats regularly fish in British waters, would get "fair and reciprocal access" after Brexit. But reciprocal deals are not in the gift of any UK prime minister. The level of access by individual Member States will be decided by the Commission, as will UK access to Union waters.

Even then, the bad news doesn't stop there. Much of the fish caught in UK waters has no domestic market. It is landed directly in ports in EU Member State territories. But, in the Notice to Stakeholders, the Commission reminds us that Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 applies to UK vessels wishing to land fish in the Union. 

Specifically, Article 20 applies, setting out requirements which must be satisfied before fish can be landed. And these requirements cannot be met without detailed agreements between the Commission and the UK. What this amounts to is that, before we are able to sell our fish to the Continent, we will have to agree a fisheries management plan with the Commission. We will not be free agents.

This Article, though, not only applies to landings but also to exports. Certification of all catches in accordance with Article 20 is required. But they not only have to be validated by the United Kingdom competent authority but they must also conform with a certification scheme which must be agreed between the Commission and the UK government. That refers back to the management plan.

Putting all these provisions together, as set out in the Notice, what this all means is that, should the UK choose to go it alone, it will get its direct control over UK waters. That, after all, was the objective of Brexit. But this control will come at a price. The UK will not be able to do deals with other EU Member States, our vessels will not be able to land fish in EU Member State Ports and we will not be able to export fish to the EU.  Furthermore, if we do want to sell fish to the EU, we have limited scope to develop independent fisheries management plans.

Then, to add insult to injury, the Commission blandly informs us that producer organisations and inter-branch organisations recognised in the United Kingdom "will no longer be considered professional organisations under EU law".

Over the weekend, Nigel Farage and others joined fishermen to make a noisy protest about the "betrayal" of the fishermen over the 21-month transition deal, which basically perpetuates the CFP for the period. He attended the ritual burning of EU flags followed by the burning of a single, derelict wooden boat. 

But, as Guardian writer Fay Schopen notes, "Nigel Farage is no fisherman's friend: he's been ignoring them for years". And that is the case – in the absence of a properly crafted fisheries plan, independence will be a Pyrrhic victory for the fishermen. Planning, though, is something Farage could never be bothered to do, and without that he's leading the fishermen up the garden path. 

Thus, when the shouting has died down, Farage may find himself needing to burn a lot more boats. They'll not be a lot of use for fishing.

Richard North 10/04/2018 link

Brexit: the poison seeps out


The Observer is going to town today, ripping into the Brexit "leave" campaign with rare gusto, publishing four pieces online in anticipation of the print copy hitting the streets.

These are a spin-off to the reports on Cambridge Analytica, with one of the stories providing a backdrop to the rest. It is headed: "Keep your enemies close: the splits and infighting behind the Leave campaigns". To this, the sub-heading adds: "The battle of the Brexiters has resurfaced in revelations over the use of campaign funds".

On top of that, we have a lengthy piece on the Channel 4 website which declares: "Brexit campaign was ‘totally illegal’, claims whistleblower".

As the details emerge, it is an ironic reflection that, as a registered campaigner, I was investigated by the Electoral Commission for failing to make a zero return on their approved form, and was considered for prosecution. I had actually made the return by e-mail because I could not log on to their dysfunctional website, but that was not good enough. I had committed an offence by not using the correct form, and had to be hunted down like the common criminal that I am.

Meanwhile, as it subsequently transpires, all sorts of dark deeds were being perpetrated by the official, state appointed Vote Leave campaign. Dirty money, apparently, was flowing freely – with what appeared to be the full knowledge and blessing of campaign organisers Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings.

Topping that, most likely, illegally acquired personal data were being misused for campaign purposes, with oceans of money being thrown at Cambridge Analytica and/or associated companies – now claimed to be in excess of spending limits.

None of this, of course, was of the slightest bit of interest to the Electoral Commission, until it was pushed into action. And even then, none of the details currently emerging have come to light as a result of the Commission's investigations. However, readers will be appalled to learn that, despite weeks of intensive investigation, the Commission let me off with only a warning for my heinous crime.

As to the Observer pieces, the particular relevance of the featured story it pulls together a narrative detailing some of the infighting and other unpleasantness that went on between leave factions, prior to and during the referendum campaign.

It opens by reminding us that "acrimony, distrust and recrimination have ravaged the battle over Brexit since the summer of 2016", yet "in the run-up to the EU referendum, the same toxic atmosphere characterised the relationship between some of the groups campaigning to secure Britain's EU exit".

"The constant warring", says the Observer "meant that they often appeared to be engaged in comic levels of factual infighting worthy of a Monty Python sketch". Leaving the EU was about the only thing they could agree on, but some now credit the fact that the groups were aiming at different groups of voters with helping to secure the shock result.

The two main groups were Vote Leave, which eventually went on to win the support of the Brexiters in David Cameron's cabinet, and Leave.EU, backed by prominent Ukip figures and bankrolled by Ukip donor Arron Banks. The former was headed by "lobbyist" Matthew Elliott and Michael Gove's former special adviser Dominic Cummings. 

We hardly need any reminding that there was no love lost between the groups but the Observer does recall that Banks said that Elliott and Cummings were "two of the nastiest individuals I have ever had the misfortune to meet" and that he "wouldn't put them in charge of the local sweet shop". Says the newspaper:
The increasingly bitter dispute was not just down to the big personalities involved. There was also a major prize at stake – the race to become the official "Leave" campaign group. The winner would gain greater spending powers and media time. Official organisations were granted up to £600,000, campaign broadcasts and free mailing. They were also allowed to spend up to £7m, instead of the £700,000 limit that applied to other registered campaign groups in the run-up to the referendum.
I remember this well, and seriously did not want Vote Leave to get the nomination. The trouble was that – fronted by Arron Banks, was no better. And our small group, the Leave Alliance, did not have the financial resources to make a credible bid. That left us the task of introducing Flexcit to these warring tribes. No wonder we had such little success.

The acrimony the dominated the groups also caused splits within political parties. While Nigel Farage was an early backer of, Ukip's only MP at the time, Douglas Carswell, backed Vote Leave. There were even reports of staff in Vote Leave headquarters shredding documents for fear that they were being spied upon by their pro-Brexit rivals. Banks has gone on record that he ordered a private detective to follow Elliott.

"The strategic differences were clear" claims the Observer, which argues that Vote Leave initially wanted to run an economy-focused campaign capable of winning over those considering voting for Brexit, but concerned about the consequences.

The group, it says, "soon identified that its most successful message was the pledge to use money currently sent to Brussels to fund the NHS". Meanwhile, Leave.EU would release starker, more right wing messages designed to appeal to Ukip voters and ensure that staunch Leavers cast their vote. Immigration, supposedly, "was their key battleground".  

In actuality, Vote Leave was a Tory-funded coup. Its primary purpose was never to win. First and foremost, its job was to run the campaign in such a way as to avoid causing damaging, long-term splits to the Conservative Party. 

As to strategy, polls and focus groups had been telling us that if David Cameron came back from Brussels without a credible "reform" deal, he would lose the referendum. When he not only failed to bring anything of substance home, but lied about it, we were poised for an easy win.

Vote Leave, however - anxious to avoid "blue on blue" - deliberately avoided using our most potent weapon. Instead, it featured its fatuous £350 million "lie on the bus". And basing its own campaign on a lie, it was in no position to call out Cameron's lies, either on the "EU reform" or his later dissimulation on what he insisted on calling the "Norway model". Through this, Vote Leave nearly lost us the referendum.

With the strong Tory bias within Vote Leave, it was unsurprising that there was soon internal strife. Labour and Green supporters, relegated to the sidelines, with no say in campaign strategy, left the group – showing its cross-party credentials to be a fraud. The Labour Leave group was at one time a supporter of Vote Leave, but leading members eventually broke away to campaign independently.

Says the Observer, with the infighting at its peak, some figures – including Farage and some Tory MPs – eventually threw their weight behind another organisation, Grassroots Out. The group's garish green ties became a feature in the Commons. One of its rallies saw the unlikely speaking lineup of Farage, Labour MP Kate Hoey and former Respect MP George Galloway.

As the referendum progressed, Leave.EU threw its weight behind the grassroots movement in a failed attempt to become the official pro-Brexit campaign. And if all that wasn't confusing enough, there was also BeLeave – the outfit now at the centre of inquiries.

Now, the Observer tells us with scarcely concealed glee, "the confusion that characterised the campaign groups has resurfaced, and questions are being asked about the precise nature of the relationship between them – and how they used the funds they received".

When it comes to the money, and the huge spend on "big data" though, no one is actually able to put forward any convincing arguments that this actually achieved anything. Much is made, for instance, of the fact that President Trump's campaign used big data techniques, but it must also be remembered that he lost the popular vote. Trump, as a referendum, would have failed.

Enormous claims are made of these techniques, and the use of social media but, when we caught a glimpse of how the system was supposed to work, it was singularly less than impressive. They had very little idea of what they should be saying.

Then, to put it bluntly, if social media was that powerful a tool of persuasion, by now my cupboards would be full of bootleg Viagra, I would have had several penis enlargements, be dating Russian "babes" and be planning to meet a Nigerian gentleman who wants to give me several million dollars.

With every Tom, Dick and Harry claiming credit for the referendum result, what the pundits forget is that the withdrawal campaign had been going for more than forty years. The referendum was but the very last stage of a long process, with the campaign the least important part of it.

Many of us remain convinced that we won in spite of the state-appointed Vote Leave. They did us no favours at all and their lies we disowned as not in our name. Who knows what a properly based campaign might have achieved – it could hardly have done worse than the train wreck produced by Elliott and Cummings.

Richard North 25/03/2018 link

Brexit: the worst of all possible worlds


It seems as if Russia has served its unintended purpose of distracting from the European Council and the guidelines on the future relationship with the UK. Mrs May has walked away with expressions of solidarity from the EU and Member States, claiming the deal brokered with the EU has laid the ground for a "new dynamic" in the talks.

With that, a complacent media is variously reporting that Mrs May has achieved "success in negotiating a standstill transition deal", while the Mail has the prime minister hailing the "spirit of opportunity". The Wall Street Journal even went so far as to declare: "Prime Minister Theresa May concluded on Friday what probably counts as her most successful EU summit".

This is an utterly bizarre "take" on what feels like the most ignominious surrender since Lord Cornwallis ceded Yorktown, Virginia to Washington on 19 October 1781 – on receipt of news of which, Prime Minister Lord North is said to have repeatedly exclaimed, "Oh, God! It's all over!".

In accepting the terms set out in the guidelines adopted by the European Council yesterday, Mrs May has effective opened the way to a further 21 months of subordination to the EU, without being able to take part in any of the decision-making processes that attend membership of the EU.

Not only that, the guidelines pave the way to a future partnership that "will inevitably lead to frictions in trade" and "unfortunately" will "have negative economic consequences, in particular in the United Kingdom".

In entirely uncompromising terms, the European Council has reiterated that "any agreement with the United Kingdom will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations, and ensure a level playing field", noting that, "a non-member of the Union, that does not live up to the same obligations as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member".

The Council recalls that the four freedoms are indivisible and that there can be no "cherry picking" through participation in the Single Market based on a sector-by-sector approach, which would undermine the integrity and proper functioning of the Single Market.

Thus, it further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as regards its decision-making, which excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a third-country in the Union Institutions and participation in the decision-making of the Union bodies, offices and agencies.

Leaving no room for ambiguity, it states that the role of the ECJ "will also be fully respected" and, while it is ready to "initiate work towards a balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging free trade agreement", it cannot "offer the same benefits as Membership and cannot amount to participation in the Single Market or parts thereof".

At the Council, we heard that the EU "wants to have the closest possible partnership with the UK, which would cover trade and economic cooperation, security and defence, among other areas". However, we are told, the EU 27 leaders noted that UK's current positions "limit the depth of such a future partnership".

Donald Tusk told reporters, "We want to use the positive momentum in the negotiations to finally settle outstanding issues such as the solution to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland". He added: "In parallel, we will start our first talks about the future EU-UK relationship. Leaders will assess in June if the Irish question has been resolved, and how to go about a common declaration on our future". 

 Even to get this far, the UK has had to agree to substantial payments to the EU budget, make substantial concessions on the free movement of persons through the transition period, and to commit to a solution on the Irish border which Mrs May declared "complexly unacceptable" to any UK prime minister.

One other price we have had to pay is the effective "betrayal" of our fishermen as the UK agrees to a continuation of the hated Common Fisheries Policy.

Even then, the transition is not a done deal. The Times is reporting that this is not enough to calm the jitters of business leaders. Thousands of jobs in the City of London, it says, will begin migrating to continental Europe from next month. Mrs Mays "success" will not to stop companies in regulated areas such as finance, chemicals and pharmaceuticals from implementing their contingency plans for a so-called hard Brexit.

All aspects of the deal are linked under the principle of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". The companies have concluded that the chance of a failure to resolve remaining differences about the transition period, such as over the Irish border, is still too high to take the risk of not being able to trade in Europe after March next year.

According to the paper, one "senior city figure" has said that between 5,000 and 10,000 jobs of finance and support staff would move by the end of this year. Another figure advising companies on their Brexit plans said more than half of all the companies they had contact with in regulated industries were intending to go ahead with their contingency plans.

This, in fact, is only to be expected. The shape of any free trade deal that the EU is prepared to offer will not give market access to UK-manufactured pharmaceuticals, chemicals, automotive and aviation products, and a host of other products. Even cosmetics will be affected.

Interestingly, calls Mrs May's deal a process of "managed surrender" which, I suppose, is something more than Cornwallis managed. As a sub-heading, it declares: "London talks tough but gives Brussels what it wants".

Yet, the national humiliation is by no means over. The withdrawal talks, says, are likely to become even more lopsided as an unofficial October deadline for agreement on the framework of the future UK-EU relationship draws near.

Any resemblance with a negotiation among equals is purely cosmetic, it adds. And that will be a different sort of cosmetic to the ones we will no longer be able to sell in the EU and wider EEA.

Michael Leigh, a former head of the European Commission's enlargement department, sees the withdrawal process in terms of an accession negotiation in reverse. And, like our entry negotiations, the balance of power and time are, once again, not on London's side. The prospect of a no-deal Brexit is more harmful to the UK than to its continental partners and we have too much to lose.

Leigh reminds us of how, during our entry negotiations, the UK's chief negotiator Con O'Neill described how, for the accession process to succeed, we would have to: "Swallow the lot and swallow it now". It turns out, Leigh says, that "leaving the bloc is a strikingly symmetrical process".

Despite this, the "ultras" have been remarkably quiescent. One wonders if the essence of the May surrender has really registered with them. Their house journal the Telegraph, for instance, leads today with an "exclusive", headlining: "Cars to travel slower than bicycles on England's clogged-up roads within a decade". The European Council is scarcely reported, while most of the media seems to be obsessing over the sacking of a person called Owen Jones - I think.

Whether the "ultra" silence represents merely the calm before the storm or just another Tory surrender on the scale of Maastricht remains to be seen. "Ultra" leader Rees-Mogg and the other mouths alongside him will have their chance, no doubt, on Monday when Mrs May reports to the Commons on her adventure in Brussels. But something tells me we should not hold our collective breaths.

It is, after all, the combined efforts of the "ultras" that have brought us to this point, where the "least-worst" Norway option has been rejected, only for us to end up with something inestimably worse. One hopes, at least, that they are able to express a little shame for what they have done.

These people, though, are High Tories. They don't do shame, although they are past masters at betrayal. It's what they do superbly well – the only thing in which they actually excel. But, in this case, first and foremost, they have betrayed themselves – as well as those who were foolish enough to rely on them. North's first rule of politics comes to mind: never trust a Tory. The second rule is: always obey the first.

For those who might have looked to the bankrupt Ukip for salvation, all they have is an etiolated ex-leader throwing dead fish into the Thames. Farage might just as well throw himself in afterwards, for all the good he is – despite an apparent Damascene conversion, confiding recently that that the government's "biggest mistake" was not going straight way for the Norway option.

Any which way, Brexit is now going to be a matter of counting the job losses and the missed opportunities. It didn't have to be this way but, if we have a political class where incompetence seems to be its highest aspiration, I suppose we should have expected it. Now we have to clean up the mess.

Richard North 24/03/2018 link

Brexit: catch-up day


It is almost four years to the day that we received a perfunctory note from the IEA informing us that our submission for their "Brexit Prize" had not even made the final shortlist – in common with every other submission that had suggested adoption of the so-called "Norway option".

The disgusting Lord Lawson and his biased panel of judges had rigged the competition so that no such heresy made the final cut. But days later, I was able to publish the first version of Flexcit, the 98 pages which has since expanded to its current 406 pages, augmented by 17 Monographs and not far short of two million words written on this blog.

No one with any honesty can say that Flexcit didn't make a mark. After having read it, and met me several times, Dominic Cummings - of what was to become Vote Leave - know all about it,but deliberately rejected it.

His were the spurious grounds that a coherent plan for leaving the EU would be "divisive" to the Tories who were to hijack the campaign. In the event of a leave vote, the great Cummings idea was "to force a new Government to negotiate a new deal and give us a new vote". How did that work out Dominic?

As to, I met Arron Banks several times in his offices in Bristol and personally handed him a copy of Flexcit. We even did a special version for him, called the "The Market Solution". But, after showing initial enthusiasm, he took fright after Ukip extremists gave him a hard time. He then dumped the plan without even the good grace to tell me. That is the measure of the man.

Nevertheless, we ran our own Leave Alliance campaign, with Flexcit at its centre. And, with an online copy freely available, we registered more than 100,000 downloads. The media knew all about it, but it was quite deliberately ignored. It didn't fit the narrative.

But those four years down the line, I suppose we must be expected to hold our hands up in awe as the great Simon Jenkins finally acknowledges the value of the "Norway option, believing it "offers the only sensible way for Britain". He also tells us that: "The smart money in Brussels was always on the Norway option".

That is not to say that Jenkins fully understands its advantages – but he's closer than some. The so-called European Economic Area, he says, "was a simple 'off-the-shelf' basis for a bespoke deal with the UK".

Of course, it acquires its prestige not from us lowly creatures who have nurtured it for so long. Jenkins relies on "a favourable analysis" last month in The Economist. Even though superficial and error-strewn (it claims, for instance that Iceland has never invoked Art 112 of the EEA Agreement), it obviously impressed Jenkins enough for him to give it a punt, especially when the august journal declares that, given all that has passed: "It seems perverse now to reject the option out of hand".

Jenkins now sees the barrier to forging a new relationship with Efta, lying: "not in negotiating it but in overcoming Theresa May's belief that her fate depended on some 50 backbench leavers and the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail. She was terrified of them".

This is typical bubble-talk, though, seeing things through the spectrum of Westminster politics, again at a wholly superficial level. In fact, the poison long predates Mrs May, stemming from when David Cameron and Vote Leave saw common cause in trashing what they insisted on calling the "Norway model".

With the media never bothering to get past the low-grade "pay-no say" propaganda of both sides, or the added canards that the option meant buying into unrestricted freedom of movement and staying subordinate to the ECJ, the "Norway option" has never stood much of a chance.

Now, however, we are perhaps beginning to see a crack in the dam. Underlying Jenkins's Damascene conversion is the same conclusion to which we are drawn: that the UK is simply running out of options. This makes Efta/EEA the obvious escape route. 

Unlike Jenkins, though, who thinks that Mrs May will "drive her hard Brexiters into sullen acceptance [of the Single Market] or resignation, my reading is that the prime minister will never back down on her Lancaster House stance.

Rather than the Jenkins's thesis that the unacceptability of the "vassal state" transition will give Mrs May the opening she needs to pursue the Norway option, it is more likely that she will try to force the transition settlement through the House, regardless of the opposition.

Like the Financial Times, I tend to the view that Mrs May will abandon her current "red lines" and accept any deal she can get. In this, she can always rely on her back benchers. Confronting electoral oblivion, they will cave in and back their leader – just as they did in the final Maastricht vote.

Thus, I don't see a sudden change of heart coming from No. 10 – any more than I see the media suddenly recognising our role in the debate, and the fact that we have done more than most to keep the Efta/EEA option alive.  

But that, as we have so often observed, is the way the media works. Nothing exists until they have discovered it or "invented" it for themselves. And such is the fear of independent political blogs, and especially serious and well-informed blogs such as this one, that they will go to any lengths to avoid drawing attention to them, or acknowledging their work – even if they draw heavily on our material when it suits them.

A classic example of this parasitic relationship comes with Ian Dunt of who has made a career of lifting other people's ideas from blogs, twitter and other independent sources.

Nonetheless, for all his assiduous "borrowing", he has only just noticed that "Free market extremists" are hijacking the "Brexit trade chaos". Picking on the recent Policy Exchange report, he regales us with its dastardly plot, whereby it is "demanding Britain unilaterally reduce its tariffs as part of a potent new Britannia-rules-the-waves trading adventure".

The intent is, says the egregious Dunt, "to use Brexit as a hard reset on British society, eradicating the protections available to struggling industries and unleashing a kind of Viagra-capitalism. It's basically Thatcherism 2.0".

Never mind that unilateral tariff reduction is Minford's agenda and that we've been banging on about it for several years. Never mind the close relationship between the Policy Exchange and Legatum, and with the IEA. Dunt is obviously behind in his reading and is only just catching up. Soon enough, he will "discover" this and claim it for his own.

Meanwhile, the rest of the media is indulging itself in the ongoing drama of the blue passports and the news that the printing contract could go to a Franco-Dutch company.

Perhaps the most entertaining comment comes from the Evening Standard. "Surely", it observes, "this is exactly the kind of global free trade the Brexiteers told us they were all in favour of? Britain benefiting, as the free market delivers the most competitive product to our citizens".

Rubbing salt in the wound, it goes on to say, "That's certainly what they once claimed. Jacob Rees-Mogg said 'free trade puts consumers first and lowers prices for all'. Yet he, and a host of other Brexiteers, now tell us that the new passport contract should have been awarded to a British firm - not because it offers a better product at a better price, but for the simple reason it is based in Britain".

But, in their rush to point out the EU dimension, none of the media pointed out that, even after Brexit, we will still be signatories to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. Ironically, the likes of Rees-Mogg, so keen on WTO rules, would still – most likely - find his treasured passports printed abroad.

Thus, even when they do their trivia, the media so often miss the point. But in this case, we hadn't done it on the blog for them to scavenge. No doubt, in fullness of time, the media will catch up once more, and discover the WTO link all by themselves. That is what they do.

Richard North 23/03/2018 link

Brexit: the enemies within


It occurred to me as I followed the drama of Ukip's leadership turmoil that the people who have done the damage to the party are not those who resigned – often in disgust or despair at the party's behaviour – but those who stayed in it or joined after I had left.

Despite being the only political party dedicated to leaving the EU, it failed to take a lead role in the referendum and, since then, has barely contributed to the post-Brexit debate, degenerating into warring factions that has now spawned Gerard Batten as the interim leader.

If the ejection of Henry Bolton as Ukip leader hasn't spelt the death-knell of the party, then the appointment of Batten will complete the process. In the lead in declaiming Article 50 as a trap, and one of those who is convinced that the EU is a Nazi construct, the longer he is in post, the more damage he will do.

Meanwhile, filling the vacuum left by Ukip's multiple inadequacies, is a sinister group of right-wingers, coalescing across the Atlantic to form a coalition of think-tanks to pursue their anti-regulation, "free trade" agenda in the form of a UK-US trade agreement.

Their identity has apparently been released by accident after the premature publication of a report on Daniel Hannan's Initiative for Free Trade (IFT) website (now removed).

On the American side, we have the AEI, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Cato Institute – which was founded by billionaire oil refiner, Charles Koch – is planning to write the first draft of an "ideal" trade agreement between the UK and the US.

On this side of the Atlantic, we have the IEA, the Legatum Institute (rather predictably), the Adam Smith Institute, Civitas and the Policy Exchange – which hosted foreign secretary Johnson's Brexit speech last week.

Interestingly, Johnson features in the Booker column this week, when his rallying cry on Brexit left some of us wondering, not for the first time, whether he has quite the secure grasp on reality we expect from a Foreign Secretary.

Booker remarks that, as he enthused about Britain "going global" he looked forward to the day when we can start scrapping all those "intolerable" EU regulations.

But as Booker first noted back in 2013, under the heading "Forget Brussels – now we are ruled by the giants of Geneva", what no UK politicians seem to have noticed is the revolution whereby so much EU regulation now originates from global bodies even higher than Brussels, which merely passes it on.

At the time, Efta had just reported that "more than 90 percent" of the EU's single market rules now came from UN and other global bodies, such as the OECD, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), all of which had to be faithfully transcribed into EU law.

Thus, avers Booker, what Boris will discover is that "going global" will mean that we still have to obey almost all those same global regulations, In the trade it's called "the double coffin lid". You escape from one coffin, only to discover there's another one even bigger outside it.

However, Hannan's IFT benefitted from the presence of Johnson at its launch – who made available Foreign Office premises for the event (possibly in breach of the ministerial code), and he has the enthusiastic support of Liam Fox's Department of International Trade.

Thus, while Johnson's ignorance undoubtedly contributes to the lack of any reference to the structure of world trade and the role of global regulation, there is also this more sinister agenda at work, dominating the right wing Brexit ambitions.

Not content merely to leave the European Union, these people are seeking to exploit it as an opportunity to promote their own political doctrines, based on the notions of free trade and minimal regulation, supposedly guided by the model of the economy in Singapore.

Having met most of the players on both sides of the Atlantic, and known and followed their work for decades, one is struck not by their grasp of the subject but by their most profound ignorance of how the global trading system actually works.

But this ignorance is doctrine-based. They know nothing of the system because they don't want to know. Ultimately, they are wreckers, determined to tear down the existing order and replace it with their own.

Their initial targets, as the Guardian points out, are food and agricultural standards and public procurement. In the second grouping, the glittering prize is access to NHS contracts for US health care enterprises, leading to charge that the Brexit agenda conceals a plot to privatise the NHS.

Inasmuch as this right wing grouping would indeed wish to see the break-up of the NHS, there is some truth in the charge, although it cannot be said that this ambition represents the Brexit movement as a whole, or even a significant part of it.

It would be more accurate to say that Brexit is being exploited for doctrinaire purposes – a complication we could do without, not least because it fuels left wing hostility to EU withdrawal. Linking Brexit with a plot to dismantle the NHS could be a powerful weapon for remainers determined to reverse the referendum result.

Almost as powerful is the symbolism of "chlorinated chickens" and hormones in beef, which has been used to illustrate the potential effects of a trade deal with the US. And while the impact of cheap US produce on UK agriculture is perhaps not as severe as might be imagined, this is another issue which can be recruited by remainers to their cause.

To that extent, the worst enemies of Brexit, far beyond the incompetence of Ukip, are these highly motivated and influential right wingers. With considerable funding from wealthy donors, they are hijacking the Brexit process, taking it far beyond any imaginable mandate that the referendum might have conferred.

They are quick to say that the vote requires us to leave the Single Market, thus claiming an electoral mandate – despite the claim being highly questionable – but by no stretch of the imagination can the referendum result be considered a carte blanche for turning the UK into a bastardised version of Singapore.

That they lack a mandate for such a fundamental change, however, undoubtedly explains the underhand way in which the agenda is being rolled out. As a centrepiece to a general election campaign, this would almost certainly ensure victory for Labour – which is why it has never been put openly to the electorate.

The core agenda, as it stands, involves abandoning our longstanding trading arrangements with Europe, and their replacement with what amounts to an "Anglosphere" trading association, based loosely on the white Commonwealth and the United States.

Having never been put to the electorate, it is thoroughly dishonest, with the promoters entirely meriting the epithet "sinister". Were the full agenda to become publicly known, it could damage the support for Brexit to such an extent that the whole process could founder.

We are thus confronting the enemy within. Although they wear eurosceptic clothes, they are no friends of Brexit. In pursuing their own interests, they are squeezing us between left and right and, ultimately, could destroy any hopes of achieving a rational Brexit.

Richard North 18/02/2018 link

Brexit: a political void


With the way Brexit is going, more than ever, we need active monitoring and critical analysis of the government's performance. And, in our system there is probably no organisations better suited to these tasks than the opposition political parties.

Very obviously, our main party, Labour, is not doing terribly well and the Lib-Dems do not even register. To say they were useless would be something of a compliment.

Logically, the most obvious operation to step into the breach is Ukip, although that ship sailed a long time ago. The party is a shadow of its former self and increasingly, under the baleful tutelage of its new leader, it is said to be descending into civil war.

And now, we learn from that ever-reliable source, the Daily Mail that that party is on the brink of bankruptcy. Its recent accounts show it was £380,630 in debt before last year's election and now a group of senior party figures, led by MEPs Stuart Agnew and Bill Etheridge, are demanding radical cost-cutting to keep it afloat.

The party has been told that it needs immediately to start laying off staff and giving notice on its tenancies for office buildings. It will also have to ditch mailouts to party members, all part of "radical structural change" necessary to "save Ukip from going under".

The party has been called upon to "give immediate notice" to its chairman, national agent and spokesman whose wages they claimed make up 45 percent of Ukip's salary bill. Thus, in addition to "giving notice on all rented property", the party is being told that it needs to consider "suspending the practice of paying expenses to any senior personnel".

Furthermore, to add to the travails of the party, it faces the prospect of losing its leader. The National Executive Committee will hold a vote of confidence on Henry Bolton on Sunday - after he left his third wife, the Russian-born Smurova-Bolton, for a model less than half his age, who it emerged had posted a slew of racist messages online.

The only thing that might possibly save Bolton is the very financial crisis that is causing so many problems. The party simply can't afford another leadership contest.

Nor does there seem to be any obvious replacement. However, he is also being described by his former campaign manager as a "Walter Mitty character" who is killing off Ukip.

This Susie Govett who says of Bolton, "He's put the future of the whole party at stake at a key Brexit juncture, setting UKIP back a decade". She adds: "Now the party looks like it's full of fruitcakes and loonies like the Tories always said it was. If a party can't even govern ourselves, how can we seriously expect people to back us to govern the country?"

Interestingly, one name that does not feature in any report of a putative rescue is Nigel Farage. This is a man who used the party as a platform to bring him fame and fortune. And now he seems to have deserted the very party that has served him so well – to say nothing of the cause he so publicly championed – with no suggestion that he is to be part of the solution.

On the other hand, all sorts of mud seems to be floating around, if not exactly sticking, with talk of Russia, FBI investigations and much else.

Whatever one might think of Farage (and Ukip), not even his best friends would accuse him of leading a conventional lifestyle or of being surrounded by ordinary people. One member of his parliamentary group staff in Brussels, for instance, has been known for making trips to the Russian embassy in Belgium, and has been accused of orchestrating a smear campaign against a critic of the Kremlin.

This is Kevin Ellul Bonici, a native of Malta known to have a relationship with the Russian embassy. Bonici was part of a small team who worked in the administration of the secretariat office at the Farage's EFDD political group until at least 2015. Several sources said Bonici was close at that time to Farage, who relied on the core secretariat staff to help manage the EFDD.

Information about that came via the Guardian but much else has been published by a variety of sources, not a lot of it making sense. There lacks a unifying thread or anything approaching closure.

Someone who keeps an eye on such things is Greg Lance-Watkins who has posted some official papers from the US House of Representatives which adds further murk to an already murky situation – but very little light.

The latest on this is Nigel Farage supposedly having been thrust into the Donald Trump Russia scandal after being accused of secretly handing data to Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder.

Farage is said to have repeatedly met Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy and delivered him a "thumb drive" of information. It is unclear when the trips are alleged to have taken place but it appears the claim includes suggestions some visits happened before the 2016 vote.

The suggestion is that Farage was secretly passing data to the group that published hacked Democratic emails before the US election - to the benefit of Mr Trump. Unsurprisingly, Farage denies that charge, dismissing it as "yet more conspiratorial nonsense".

As to Russian links, rumours have extended to Arron Banks, with calls for an inquiry into "foreign interference".

The great danger is that rumours of Russian involvement, financial malpractice and other shady dealings will add to the strength to the case for reviewing if not Brexit itself but the conduct of the referendum. Although nothing yet has come to a head, there is every indication that such issues are going to run and run.

But whether or not this is the case, at the very least, it represents a huge distraction from the task at hand. Ukip members need desperately to be focusing on Brexit, with many good people having devoted years of service to the cause of leaving the EU. But now any utility the party ever had as a useful vehicle for addressing Brexit issues has long gone.

All of this creates a political void the like of which we have not known since the creation of Ukip. An awful lot of people no longer have a political home. And yet, as we indicated at the start of this piece, the need for a political organisation dedicated to the pursuit of Brexit has never been greater. 

How we fill that void is something we need to be thinking about, and thinking very hard indeed.

Richard North 20/01/2018 link

Brexit: a media desert


A year or more after we started writing about problems associated with customs checks at the borders, post-Brexit, we finally see in the Herald Scotland an article about customs arrangements when we leave the EU. The story in the paper is couched in terms of one of Scotland's more important industries – whisky production – about which we hear specific concerns from a leading distiller.

This leading distiller is Martin Leonard, managing director of Airdrie-based Inver House Distillers and he fears that the new customs system will be ill-equipped to deal with the huge increase in workload the UK's exit from the EU is expected to bring. We do not need to explore in any detail the nature of these concerns. The reason for us looking at the article at all is to note how the media is finally catching up with the issues, just as they cease to have any relevance to the debate.

The earlier concern was that, when we left at the end of March 2019, the customs service (HMRC) would not have the software and systems in place to handle the huge increase in workload that is expected. However, with Mrs May's commitment to a transitional process – which will give us at least 21 months of the status quo - we are no longer faced with a "sudden death" scenario once the Article 50 negotiations are complete. All being well (for the government), HMRC will have that extra time in which to prepare.

The point thus to make is that this newspaper is trailing badly behind when it comes to reporting the actual situation – something we see elsewhere. The Telegraph, for instance, is offering a travesty of a story on radioactive isotopes, based on an equally illiterate report to a select committee.

Neither bears much relation to reality, as explained on this blogpost last July. Yet that is all the newspaper can manage when it comes to informing its readers.

However, when it comes to recounting the latest twists and turns of the Ukip leader, who has split with girlfriend over racist messages about Meghan Markle, the papers leave no stones unturned. There is no limit to the amount of detail that they will entertain and the speed of their reporting despite the total irrelevance of Ukip.

What is equally relevant is what the newspapers leave out. A classic example is this, where the Tories recently tried to claim credit for reducing credit card charges when, in fact, the initiative had come from the European Union. Meanwhile, The Guardian has discovered the term of "third country" and is taking it out for a spin while having little conceptual understanding of it.

Another example is the recent news on the epidemic of fly-tipping where The Times manages to omit that much of the problem arises from EU legislation and the insistence on phasing out landfill in favour of more costly methods of disposal. The result has been a massive increase in charges which, entirely predictably, had led fly-tipping reaching an eight-year high last year with more than a million incidents in England.

This is an absolutely classic omission which typifies the fourteen years of this blog, where we have routinely noted the media's inability to report on the EU. We have watched as it has hollowed itself out, asset stripping and delegating the serious work to juniors, casually dispensing with its institutional knowledge. Its contemptible ineptitude is far from a new development. We no longer hold any expectations of it. There is no longer a distinction between broadsheet and tabloid.

We also find that television media is in a similar state of disrepair with the likes of Andrew Neil and Robert Peston, they who are paid extraordinary sums to know what is happening, and indeed influence events, still cannot come to terms with the most basic terminology. It strikes us that these people are no longer in the business of reporting news or informing. Rather they are there to produce content for its own sake.

The sole intent now seems to be the production of what is loosely called "clickbait", published solely for the purpose of starting conversations and generating readers, but not with any intent of leading the debate.

Largely, the media are simply adding to the noise. There is no obligation to bring clarity or to set standards for public discourse. And without a media capable of living up to its obligations, and a public broadcaster joining them in the race to the bottom, there is no possibility of an informed electorate nor a worthwhile dialogue between the governors and the governed.

Despite all that, though, there are occasional flashes of usefulness, as with this report in the Independent. The paper has found video footage of a Sky News broadcast from three years ago which has Alexander (aka Boris) Johnson categorically stating he would vote to stay in the Single Market.

When asked whether he would vote to leave or remain in the European Union in the event of a referendum, Johnson says he was "in favour" of staying in a Single EU trading bloc. He wanted, he says, to ensure good trade links with "our European friends and partners".

This not only contradicts his recent stance on the issue during the referendum campaign but also his comments reported recently in the wake of Farage's effluvia, where we informed us that staying in the Single Market was akin to staying in the EU.

This is wholly indicative of the almost complete inability of both politicians and media to deal rationally with the argument over the Single Market. Even in this report, we find the Independent blithely informing us that Norway "has access to the single market but must accept all the regulations of the bloc, including free movement of people into the country".

Such a level of commentary, bluntly, is pathetic – so basic and trivial that it hardly qualifies as an adult contribution. Time after time, though, we get this type of remark uncritically repeated, representing the basic knowledge level of the media. Any subtlety or detail is totally beyond the legacy media journalists.

On the back of all this, we get a report from Lord Ashcroft on the views of his latest focus groups.

Of the 31 weeks since the general election, he muses, much has happened in politics but little of it could be said to have lifted the spirits. Even then, the opposition has failed to open up the clear lead they might have expected over what has often seemed a hapless governing party, and surveys show the Tory ratings to be all but unchanged since polling day.

What we get for many is a Brexit were the story had just become "background noise". Says one respondent: "You kind of zone out of it. It's been going on for nearly two years". Another says, "I'm bored with it. I'm bored to the back teeth so I switch off. You've just got to hope they know what they're doing".

Unfortunately, says Ashcroft, evidence that the government does indeed know what it's doing seemed thin on the ground, and many of his respondents agreed. "It seems a bit shambolic", says one. "A bit patchy, a bit sketchy", says another. And then, on the generality of the news, we get: "Apart from Brexit, all I've heard recently is that the NHS is on its arse, the police service is on its arse, and the exchange rate when you go on holiday is on its arse too".

Our readers, however, don't need a focus group to convey the utter sense of boredom and frustration that pervades the study of politics. Day after day, it's been felt keenly on this blog, sapping our enthusiasm and our ability to stay on top of issues.

To ignore it though would be to distort the record. When the story of Brexit comes to be told, we must convey how the politicians and the media between them managed to turn the most interesting and important issue of the day into an exercise in applied tedium, with the media in particular creating a desert of information.

That media desert is part of the story and one, more than anything, that will probably determine the popular response to the Brexit outcome.

Richard North 16/01/2018 link

Brexit: a complete lack of self-awareness


It was in 2002 that, as the senior staff member on Ukip's European Parliament team, I started talking seriously to Farage about setting up our own think-tank in Brussels. My argument was that the debate had to be driven by the best information available and that we would need to develop a post exit strategy in order to clinch the deal.

I will not go back into the detail of that period other than to say that Farage was committed to his election strategy and all available funding went into financing his ambitions to become a member of the Westminster parliament. Research was nowhere on his agenda.

It took until 2013 for there to be any wider recognition that a formal post-exit plan was needed, leading to the botched IEA Brexit competition, judged by the malevolent Lord Lawson who managed to pick a winner who disappeared into obscurity almost as fast as he emerged.

Come the referendum, the Ukip leader and his party were completely unequipped to fight the campaign, having spent no time or effort developing an exit plan of their own. Worse still, through Arron Banks, our attempts to introduce Flexcit were rejected, following on from the stupidity of Dominic Cummings in insisting that the leave campaign should not have an exit plan.

Following the referendum, we thus found ourselves in a political vacuum, an entirely predictable state of affairs, where the fragmented "leavers" had no settled ideas of how we should manage Brexit, while the self-proclaimed leaver-in-chief departed the field and had absolutely nothing of interest to say.

Now, this intellectual pygmy is returing to the fray with a complaint, enthusiastically retailed by the Observer on its front page, that the remainers "are making all the running" in the post-referendum debate. He fears, as a result, that "our historic Brexit vote could now be reversed".

With an extraordinary lack of self-awareness, this "former Ukip leader" tells the Observer that he was becoming increasingly worried that "the Leave camp had stopped fighting their corner", leaving a well-funded and organised Remain operation free to influence the political and public debate without challenge.

And this is a man who, while actually in post as the Ukip leader, prohibited his staff from reading and remains unware of its contents or the fact that we have never, ever stopped fighting. We have been there, every day, while he prats around in America and on his ghastly LBC radio show, doing anything and everything but focus on Brexit.

Quite obviously lacking any understanding of the processes involved, he whines that the "case for a complete break from the EU was no longer being made", even by pro-Brexit MPs in parliament. Instead, he says, the Remain camp was relentlessly putting out its message that a hard Brexit would be ruinous to the British economy and bad for the country, "without people hearing the counter-argument that had secured Brexiters victory in the 2016 referendum campaign".

And there, writ large, is the ineffable inadequacy of the man. The whole point is that leavers are not putting across any coherent plan for leaving the EU, but are allowing the "ultras" free rein to promote the idea of a "hard" Brexit which could only bring economic ruin upon us.

Farage says he now has a similar feeling to the one he had 20 years ago when Tony Blair appeared to be preparing the country for an eventual entry into the euro.

Amazingly, he then tells us: "I think the Leave side is in danger of not even making the argument", then asserting that: "The Leave groups need to regather and regroup, because Remain is making all the arguments. After we won the referendum, we closed the doors and stopped making the argument".

This, to the Observer is a "rallying call" to us leavers. It reflects, the paper says, "genuine alarm among hard line Brexit supporters that too many concessions have already been made to the Remain side of the Brexit argument by Theresa May's government, and that more could follow".

Yet, when it comes to closing the doors and ceasing to make the arguments, that criticism applies most directly and with greatest force to Farage himself. Even now he has no real (or any) idea of where to go next and how to recover the situation.

However, for all of Farage's inadequacies, we cannot leave the media out of the equation. Through the entire process, it has given Farage a platform and never once challenged his lack of vision. The Forth Estate, which supposedly holds politicians to account, has spectacularly failed to put the Ukip leader on the spot. And now, uncritically, it allows him whine about the travails of the "leave" movement.

To a very great extent, though, Farage is whistling in the wind – as out of touch as ever he was. He fears there is no longer a majority in the Westminster parliament for Brexit and that a "meaningful vote" on the final deal could see it vetoed by MPs.

Despite his, the crux of the matter is that the power resides in Brussels, not Westminster (or even Whitehall). Already, Mrs May is dancing to the Brussels tune with her (so far) uncritical acceptance of the "vassal state" transition process and there is every indication that the UK will be forced into the mould set by the "colleagues".

Given the opportunity to comment on the situation – as he has been – Farage would have been better advised to question Mrs May's negotiation strategy, and her apparent willingness to concede a transition agreement which will so much disadvantage the UK.

That, of course, would require Farage to be a master of detail and, throughout the referendum campaign and subsequently, he has never shown any indication of understanding the issues.

Nor indeed has the other intellectually challenged advocate of Brexit – Alexander Johnson, who privately shares Farage's concerns that the referendum result could yet be reversed. He is warning that Brexit is still far from certain and that leavers in the government "face a big fight" to deliver it.

The "establishment" across Whitehall and the City, he says, will step up efforts to stop Brexit over the next twelve months. He also fears that Mrs May will be worn down and eventually forced to accept a bad deal by mandarins and Remain-leaning Cabinet ministers during the "trade negotiations" that start in March.

It is a measure of the man that he should make this complaint when the trade negotiations don't start until we have left the EU. But we can expect nothing of a man who apparently believes that having to accept diktats from Brussels would leave the UK as "just another Norway", making the referendum "a total waste of time". He would, he says, "rather us stay in than leave like that".

That this is the best he can offer comes as no surprise. From Johnson and Farage, during the campaign we got classic examples of how not to fight a referendum so it would be more than a little optimistic to expect sensible contributions from either of the pair right now.

Hopefully though (and most probably), their contributions are just noise. Farage in particular has been a waning star for some time and the contortions of the new Ukip leader cannot be helping his already tarnished reputation. And as for Johnson, this man is also losing influence with each passing day.

On the other hand, not just Farage but neither seem to have the faintest glimmer of self-awareness – a trait common in British politics. Were they to realise how fatuous they both sound, be might currently be enjoying a period of silence.

But since neither of them have learned to shut up, and the incontinent media will always give them a platform, we have not heard the last of them just yet.

Richard North 15/01/2018 link

Brexit: removing the middle ground


One wonders what the Observer thinks it's doing, telling us that 20 British MEPs want Theresa May to "seek full membership of the European single market and customs union".

Real news (if it could even be considered as such) would be finding that less than twenty of our current batch of 73 MEPs did not want Single Market and customs union membership, bearing in mind that the majority of non-UKIP MEPs probably want to stay in the EU.

But if there is one thing consistent about British politics, it is the irrelevance of MEPs in the general domestic debate. Apart from Nigel Farage and one or two others, most people would be hard put to it to name any of them.

This current group of MEPs comprises three Tories and twelve from Labour. But that hardly poses, as the newspaper avers, either a challenge for the prime minister or for Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn" When we get to 29 March next year, these people will be without a job. Even now, their voices are largely unheard.

Ironically, this is actually something they have in common with most of us. As Pete points out, an almost defining characteristic of this government is that it isn't listening. It's not even listening to its own party, much less the media and the self-important "Brexitologists" who provide so much of their copy.

Even if these particular MEPs were to make some impact on public opinion, their influence would doubtless be set against that of a different group who claim that there is "huge support" for reverting to WTO rules.

Along with Farage, this group is to meet Michel Barnier in Brussels next week to acquaint him its views, a group that includes Steven Woolfe, a former UKP MEP and one-time leadership favourite, last seen prostrate on a walkway in the European Parliament after an altercation with Mike Hookem, the party's then defence spokesman.

Another prominent member is former CBI head, Lord Digby Jones. He's the one who, at the 2013 Ukip conference, argued against the use of Article 50 and for the immediate repeal of the European Communities Act. On the basis of European businesses selling more to us than we sell to them, he asserted that a trade agreement could be in place within 24 hours of our leaving the EU.

This towering intellect is joined by Labour Leave chairman, John Mills – a man who has consistently retained fixed views on the WTO option - and former British Chamber of Commerce chief John Longworth. He holds somewhat similar views.

What emerges from this is that people who have fixed views on Brexit are expressing those fixed views. Some of them have held the same views, unchanged, for many years. Even if the government was in the consultation business, therefore – and sought advice from the broader community – all it would get is what we're seeing in the media. People with fixed positions, reiterating their fixed views.

Separately, as Pete observes, we have a "space race" between various think-tanks and academics. They are concerned to own their little corners of the argument, positioning themselves for greater influence in the bubble and thereby profiting from their elevated ranking and media exposure.

The futility of this is self-evident. Even to the meanest of intellects, the determination of the government to plough its own furrow is transparently obvious. Be they the most eminent "experts" in the field, they might as well be talking to themselves.

The degeneration of the discussion into the political equivalent of trench warfare raises questions as to whether it is possible to have a genuine political debate in this country, or in any so-called democracy in the developed western world.

What we can't actually do is dignify this discussion with the title of debate. That process is that one starts with an original position (in classical terms the hypothesis). One challenges it (with the antithesis) and from the ensuing engagement, a final position emerges (the synthesis).

Up to press, that process has never been played out. It is frozen in time and shows no signs of going any further. But now we have a more sinister development.

This is explored by John Rentoul who introduces us to the so-called "ABC campaign" to keep us in the European Union, led by Adonis, Blair and Cable.

They are mooting the use of the Norway option, to press for the UK to stay in the EU Single Market after Brexit, although they clearly don't seem to have been listening to Stephen Kinnock. While he has come to terms with Article 112, which allows modification of free movement, these three imagine that that staying in the EEA means accepting free movement of people.

However, they do seem to have latched on to the idea that free movement is going to continue for at least 21 months after Brexit, during the transition period. And although it is accepted that the precise terms are to be negotiated, the transition period is seen as "the next weak point" in the Brexit defences.

That the transition should come to an end in December 2020 is an EU proposal – which makes sense as coincides with the close of the current multi-annual financial framework (MFF) period. The question for the ABC grouping, therefore, is whether the period can be extended beyond that date.

Here, there is some hope that the EU position is not as firm as it appears. The Irish government might favour a longer arrangement and, it is said, other national leaders could see a flexible period as being in their interests. Cynically, says Rentoul, they might even regard Britain in the Single Market - and paying for the privilege but excluded from troublemaking in EU Councils - as a perfect outcome, lodging the UK as a semi-permanent vassal state.

This, then, seems to be the shape of the battle to come. We can see the "remainers" playing down attempts to leave the EU, instead supporting a "soft Brexit" with an extended transition period. Adonis, Blair and Cable could say that, if we're not ready for the economic shock of a Canada-style trading deal, let us take our time about it.

Should this lodge as the core issue, any such move would transform the fight, moving the "hard" and the "soft" Brexit to opposite sides of the divide. It would destroy the "confusing" middle ground, and redefine Brexit.

All of a sudden, it would become exactly that which the media prefers – a binary issue that fuels its love of biff-bam politics. Those in the no-man's land in the middle would get shelled by both sides.

Delay in ending the transition also works for the "federalist" tendency within the Union – the Andrew Duffs of this world. They would use the time to promote a new treaty that brings with it a form of associate membership. A prolonged period as a "vassal state" would make such an alternative look quite attractive.

Faced with indecision in Whitehall and the prospect of yet another cliff edge at the end of the currently proposed transition period, free-trade "ultras" will be on the back foot. They will have to confront exactly the same "project fear" rhetoric that was been working against them for so long.

As we get closer and closer to the cliff edge, and more and more people realise what a basic free trade agreement (FTA) involves (or doesn't), the resistance will stiffen and the so-called "bregretters" could tilt the balance in favour of maintaining a form of EU membership. What is dismissed as "fear" now becomes tomorrow's reality.

Transition, therefore, says Rentoul, could be the battle of 2018: not (overtly) to stop Brexit, but to allow the possibility of a prolonged soft Brexit. For remainers, this offers the chance of getting stuck in a halfway house, and after a few years people might either decide it is fine or that we should rejoin (perhaps as associate members).

Such a glum prognosis is by no means unrealistic (it never has been). But what makes it so plausible now is the inability of leavers to coalesce around a realistic exit plan. As Eurosceptics, we were fragmented before the referendum. We are just as divided now, if not more so. Cummings and his determination not to resolve our differences, casts a long shadow.

Even worse, there is very little time to head off a situation which could end any chance of Brexit as we know it. Strident demands for a fixed end to the transition period, when all we have to replace it is a basic FTA, or pressure to adopt the WTO option, will simply strengthen the case for an extension.

For those who want a rational Brexit, this is a lose-lose scenario. Given that the Efta/EEA(Single Market) option has been so comprehensively ruled out, the one chance we have is the development of a comprehensive post-Brexit strategy that gives us more than just the thin gruel of the basic FTA.

And this is where we need that debate, the one that hasn't even started yet.

Richard North 07/01/2018 link

Brexit: an inevitable botch


To be fair to the unreconstructed remainers, if the referendum had gone the other way, I would not have given up campaigning to leave the EU. And I'm pretty sure that Farage and all the hard core leavers would have continued their campaign.

We'd have been in a situation similar to that in 1975, when the result took leaving off the agenda, but didn't settle the question. It took until Maastricht for Euroscepticism (as it then became called) to build up a head of steam, but in the meantime people such as myself hadn't gone away. We were just biding our time.

Thus, if the remainers want to set up a new single-issue political party, in the wake of James Chapman, who are we to object? We had Ukip, for what good it did us, so if the remainers want to go through all the toil and trauma of setting up a minority party, we can only wish them God speed.

To my mind, the remainers are an irrelevance. The problem we have is our own side, the "Ultras" who are set on making such a mess of Brexit that we could end up back in the EU in all but name, by default – a means of mitigating the damage caused by leaving.

The scenario in this case involves the post-Brexit EU-27 producing a much overdue treaty, in which they formalise their "Europe of circles" with the eurozone at the centre and rest forming an "outer circle" along the lines of the Spinelli/Bertelsmann "Associate Membership" – even if they gift-wrap it in a different name.

To a traumatised UK, the associate membership (or "economic partnership" if you like) can be made to look sufficiently different from full EU membership to make it saleable to a majority, including those who have turned away from Brexit and are looking for a new start.

Doubtless, we would have to go through the process of another referendum but, after a botched Brexit and the recession (if not depression) that follows, who is there amongst us who could be confident of the "no" proposition carrying the day – especially if the "colleagues" roped in the Efta/EEA members to their newly-formed outer circle.

The ultimate irony of the current situation is that, with the talk of transition and the prospect of us being unable to make a clean break from the EU for a number of years, the one sure way of securing a permanent "divorce" is to go for the Efta/EEA option. Efta membership is legally and practically incompatible with membership of the EU.

What so few people realise is that Efta/EEA never was an easy option, and there were going to be many loose ends to tidy up as well. Simply, this option was the only way we could secure a stable deal within the two-year timescale afforded by Article 50.

Even then, what I had in mind was a delay of at least a year before invoking Article 50, to give us time to make soundings to the Efta members and secure an agreement in principle that we could re-join Efta – the timing to coincide with our leaving the EU.

Since we are already a contracting party to the EEA Agreement, there would then be nothing to stop us negotiating with the EEA (through the Council, the Joint Committee and the Parliamentary Committee) to produce technical protocols and annexes to the Agreement, to cover our immediate administrative needs brought about by our EU withdrawal.

Even fewer people realise the extent to which opting for Efta/EEA takes the pressure off the Article 50 process, leaving – as I explained last year the bulk of the technical negotiations to be conducted with the EEA Joint Committee.

Had we gone for the year's delay in invoking Article 50, and made a good start with the Efta talks, would have had, in effect, three years to work out the technical details of our withdrawal, taking us out by June 2019.

In that context, the greater damage has been done by the "Ultras". Their antipathy to the Efta/EEA option has blocked us from taking the most effective and secure route to leaving, plunging us into uncertainty, where none of protagonists seem to have the first idea of what to do next.

Even worse, we have the likes of MPs Heidi Allen and Marcus Fysh who Pete so neatly dissects. With these people in positions of influence, alongside a legacy media which has completely lost the plot, there is little chance of the government coming up with a credible alternative sometime soon.

In fact, apart from the Efta/EEA option, there never was a credible option for leaving the EU. Any attempt to craft a "bespoke" agreement outside the EEA framework is going to bog us down in detail and absorb more time than we have.

By this measure, there is nothing the remainers can do to harm Brexit which the "Ultra" faction of the leavers haven't already done, with the unwitting assistance of the useful fools, such as Allen and Fysh, from both sides of the divide.

What we also tend to see is a conjunction of interest between the extremes of the argument, both seemingly wanting to sabotage a sensible Brexit plan for their own particular reasons.

It is here that Chapman's suggestion of a new party gets interesting. He wants to call an anti-Brexit party the Democracy party – obviously unconscious of the irony - arguing that Brexit is a "catastrophe" and pushing for a new referendum to get us back in the EU.

Those who would have it that Brexit is the problem, though, have got it badly wrong. There are good reasons why a well-managed Brexit could be beneficial. It is not the idea which is damaging, but its poor execution.

To that extent, we would use our own political party to guide us through Brexit – a centralist party of national unity that is prepared to put country before party and work to a stable, ideology-free Article 50 settlement, alongside a trade deal that is as close to the EEA Agreement as we can get it.

As time has gone on though, it has become more and more apparent that neither the government, parliament nor the media are up to the task of defining or shepherding us though the Brexit process. The think-tanks have shown no ability to fill the gaps, and academia – traditionally the intellectual resource to which governments turn in time of need – has retreated into a self-referential miasma devoted to applauding (and rewarding) its own "brilliance".

Rarely have all the instruments of what the pundits like to call "civil society" simultaneously failed to step up to the plate, and deliver answers for the most complex challenge of the century (so far). Restoring its capabilities is not going to be easy and nor will it be quick.

Many of us, therefore, are slowly coming to the conclusion that a chaotic Brexit is an inevitability. As do our military in the early stages of a war tend to lose their battles as part of their learning process, it seems that the civil equivalent must do likewise. It must make a mess of the Brexit process – from which it too must learn or die.

In in the meantime we get to see Foreign Secretary Johnson jailed – as Chapman is suggesting he should be – then not everything is lost.

Richard North 11/08/2017 link

Brexit: election special


09:54: The noise to information ratio has dramatically increased as the broadcast media go into prattle mode. With only two seats to declare, the verdict of the people is now clear, so I will wrap up coverage and return for my normal posting schedule. Thank you to those many readers who stayed with me through the night, and thank you all for your continued support, financial and moral.

09:20: Barnier is offering an emollient message (tweet): Brexit negotiations should start when the UK is ready; timetable and EU positions are clear. Let's put our minds together on striking a deal. Meanwhile, all the media prattle is starting over, about remaining in the Customs Union. It's painful to listen to, as the pundits line up to parade their ignorance.

09:12: We're now on 647 seats declared. The Conservatives have 316 and Labour has 261. SNP is on 35 and the Lib-Dems have 12. Mrs May has not given any indication that she will resign. If she goes, it will have to be the men in grey suits. Uncertainty reigns.

05:00: We now have 600 out of the 650 seats declared and the final result is still in the balance. Labour have gained 29 seats overall and the Conservatives have lost 12. The SNP have lost 20 seats, while the Lib-Dems gain four. Amber Rudd, incidentally, keeps her seat in Hastings.  

Meanwhile, a watery light is breaking though the curtains into my office, I think it is time for a short break. I'll pick up the threads again when I've had some sleep. By the time I wake up, politically we'll be living in a different nation. 

04:45: Latest BBC forecast gives the Conservatives 318 seats and Labour 267. SNP get 32 and the Lib-Dems grasp 11. Ukip gets no seats at all, having lost Clacton, but - much neglected - the DUP get 10. That effectively gives Mrs May (or the new Conservative leader) command of 328 votes in the House. This is a working majority and is enough. The Conservatives will be able to form a government on the strength of this.

However, and obviously, Mrs May's authority is shot.She may not even have enough time to form a new government before she is deposed, and few "big beasts" will want to stand alongside her. On the other hand, the men in grey suits may go for that "period of stability", or even pull a caretaker out of obscurity to hold the. The one thing, though, none of us bargained on was, on the Friday morning, that we'd be talking about Mrs May's successor.

04:30: State of play: 535 of 650 seats declared. Conservatives have 244 seats, with nine losses. Labour has 227 with 25 gains. It is generally agreed that the Conservatives will fall short of an absolute majority. But, with the DUP's ten seats, they could form a government. It will be an extremely fragile government though, and one that will have no mandate to take a hard line in Brussels.

Mrs May's position as prime minister is now extremely fragile, and there will undoubtedly be manoeuvring to replace her. We may well be looking at another general election later this year, with no possibility of predicting an outcome. The great danger is that Brexit is put on hold, allowing a new government to row back on the referendum result. 

Everything is now up in the air, with no way of telling which way things will develop. There are far too many variables.

04:21: Alex Salmond loses his seat to the Conservatives, after 30 years in Parliament. 

04:16: Latest Labour gains from the Conservatives: Lincoln, Croydon Central and Warrington South and Reading. They take Leeds North West from the Lib Dems. Wever Vale goes to Labour with a near five percent swing (4.7 percent). Conservatives hold Thanet South, with the Ukip vote dropping from 16,026 (Farage) to 2,997. 

04:00: Latest projection from Sky News: a range from 315 to 325 in the upper range. With 471 seats declared, no definitive forecast can be made. Essentially, we are looking at a hung Parliament, with the Conservatives failing to gain an overall majority. 

It's going to be up to the Ulster Unionists to hold the balance of power. They will be in a powerful position to dictate the shape of the Brexit settlement. For the nation, I take this as a win, the best possible outcome from a scenario that did not hold a great deal of promise.

03:30: Mrs May retakes her seat (no surprise) and more or less concedes a hung parliament, calling for "a period of stability". Latest BBC projection gives 322 votes to the "May Team". Paul Nuttall gets 3,308 votes in Boston, down from  14,645 in 2015 - a humiliating snub. The Tories take the seat with 27,271 votes - a 19.8 percent increase, compared to the 26.1 percent drop for Ukip.

03:20: Labour gain expected in Canterbury, a seat held by the Conservatives since 1918.

03:16: Labour gains Bedford, Cardiff North and Stroud from the Conservatives, and East Lothian form the SNP. In all, with 331 seats declared, Labour have gained 16 seats. Conservatives overall have lost four seats, with the SNP gains keeping the party alive. SNP is taking a beating.

03:10: Lib-Dems take Bath from the Conservatives with a 17.6 percent swing. The Conservatives drop back two percent. Corbyn returns to Islington with the highest ever vote for his constituency. "Politics has changed" he says. He calls for May to go.

02:56: Conservatives lose Peterborough to Labour and Bristol North West. Vince Cable gets Twickenham. Ben Gummer, the "rising star" of the Conservative Party, loses to Labour in Ipswich, on the back of redistributed Ukip votes. Rudd is asking for a recount.

02:46: Nick Clegg out! Labour gain with 21,881 votes to 19,756. Alexander Johnson at Uxbridge keeps his seat, with a reduced majority.

02:42: Sky New projection: Conservatives seats range from 308-328, with a mid-point of 318. The complexity of the voting patterns preclude any tighter prediction.

02:35: Labour gain Midlothian from the SNP - the second Scottish gain for Labour, showing the traffic isn't entirely favouring the Conservatives. The Conservatives gained 13.5 percent but Labour got a 6.2 increase against 16.2. But the Tory swing wasn't enough to give them a seat.

02:30: Now 145 seats in. Labour up six and the Tories down one.  The Tory losses to Labour in Britain are being balanced by Tory gains from the SNP - a dynamic which will likely strengthen through the morning. At this stage, we could end up with the Ulster Unionists holding the balance of power. That could have a huge effect on the Brexit negotiations, as the Irish will insist on a "soft" Brexit in order to keep the border open. This would mean that we would have to go for an Efta/EEA option.

02:03: The story of the night is the collapse of the Ukip vote, with the demolition of the idea that the votes were going to drop into the lap of the Conservatives. Despite Mrs May donning the clothes of the Ukip hard-liners, significant (if variable) numbers are going over to Labour - enough to skew the results in Labour's favour. And news just in, Labour gains Battersea, ousting Jane Ellison. 

01:44: Swing to Labour in Putney. Justin Greening holds with a reduced majority. Talk also that Nick Clegg is out at Sheffield Hallam. Coming up to 50 seats, the traffic is "in the direction" of Labour, providing an early conformation of the generality of the exit poll. There is no way Mrs May can spin this as a success. In fact, she will be luck to survive this as prime minister. With luck, this puts her "no deal" back on the shelf. 

01:32: Tooting held by Labour, with a substantial increase in votes of 12.5 percent. This compares with a drop of 8.8 percent in the Conservative vote (compared with 2015). This not a Ukip effect here. It's a straight swing from Conservatives to Labour.

01:09: An interesting result from North Swindon. Conservative holds with 29,431 votes, an increase of 3.3 percent (up from 26,295 in 2015). But Labour gets 21,096, increased by 10.6 percent (up from 14,509). Ukip is down 12.5 percent (8,011 votes in 2015 to 1,564 this time). There is no way we can say that the Ukip vote is flowing to the Tories. 

01:09: Wrexham just in - a Tory target, held by Labour, ostensibly worse than predicted by the exit poll. Sporadic discussion on various channels is confronting the effect of the election on Brussels and the negotiations. If this is as bad as it is beginning to look, Mrs May will need to seek a time extension and put the negotiations on hold, pending another election in the autumn, when the Conservatives again will need to pitch for the "strong and stable" leadership that they haven't had from Mrs May.

01:03: Doing a catch-up, we have 15 results in, with ten seats going to Labour, which has taken 50.3 percent of the vote, with an overall swing of 9.2 percent. The Conservatives have taken five seats, again with an increased swing of 7.6 percent. This is a direct reflection of the collapse of the Ukip vote, which has dropped 13.5 percent, currently standing at a mere four percent. 

00:58: Another observation: given the right wing media's hysterical calls for the nation to rally round May, they have clearly lost any moral authority. Nobody has taken a blind bit of notice of them.

00:44: Brief (I hope) outage. Not happy. Back online, I hope.  Results coming in are consistent in one thing - Ukip vote heavily down, but redistribution is not uniform. That makes a mockery of all those pundits who held that Ukip was not having an effect. I was writing about the "Ukip effect" in 2005, but the pundits were not on the ball.

23:25 Overall turnout high - said to favour Labour.

23:17: Sunderland (Houghton & Sunderland South) confuses. Labour, Bridget Phillipson: 24,665 - 59.5 percent (+4.4); Conservative, Paul Howell: 12,324 - 29.7 percent (+11.2), Lib-Dems, Paul John Edgeworth: 908 - 2.2 percent (+0.1); UKIP, Michael Anthony Joyce: 2,379, 5.7 percent (-15.8). UKIP polled 8,280 votes in 2015. It appears some, but not all, went to the Tories.

23:10: First result in: Newcastle Central - two percent swing to Labour. Labour, Chi Onwurah: 24,071 - 64.9 percent; Conservative, Steve Kyte: 9,134 - (+24.6 percent); Liberal Democrat, Nick Cott: 1,812 - 4.9 percent; UKIP David Muat: 1,482 4.0 percent.   Turnout 37,094 - 67 percent. Ukip nosedives: did 5,214 (14.9 percent) last time.

23:00: Times front page out: "May's big gamble fails".

: The exit poll does not cover Northern Ireland. The Irish vote could deliver ten or more seats to the Conservatives. Talk of the mainland vote, suggesting that the Ukip vote hasn't gone to the Tories. ITV pundit, talking of the Scottish vote, says "no-one saw this coming!" The big loser - apart from the Tories - could be the polls.

22:49: And the Lib-Dems are saying "no coalition". It's too early to speculate on this ... all the exit poll does for the moment is make sure we stay up a little longer. Right now, I'd like to see an uncensored interview with David Cameron. 

22:44: Out of interest, Lord Ashcroft's final estimate gave 373 seats to Conservative seats - an overall majority of 96. If turnout were to match that of the 2015 election, his model estimated 364 Conservative seats, or a majority of 78.

22:38: With no results in at all, there's talk of another election later in the year. Great speculation on which Tories are going to lose their seats. Rudd is said to be in trouble.

22:07: Off to a stonking start with a BBC exit poll which has the Tories losing their overall majority. They take 314 seats compared with Labour's 226 (up 34) and with the SNP taking 34 (down 27). The Lib-Dems get 14, the Welsh 3, Greens 1 and Others 18. Ukip is slated to get no seats.

The loss-making Guardian puts the "others" at 138 - accurate to the last. Margin of error is said to be 20 seats.

Richard North 09/06/2017 link

Brexit: UK suffers most


Mrs May was in York University yesterday evening, alongside but not confronting Jeremy Corbyn as they continued with this charade that passes for a general election campaign.

Of what the Prime Minister did say, very little was memorable and, of that, we'd mostly heard it before, leaving the media thin pickings. The news agency Reuters was thus left to reiterate Mrs May's defining position, telling us that she was confident that Britain could get a good deal in the forthcoming negotiations, but would be prepared to walk away without an accord on departure terms if necessary.

In terms of the precise quote, we have her saying: "I've said that I think no deal would be better than a bad deal. Now I'm confident we can get a good deal with the right plan for those negotiations, because I think a good deal is in our interests and in the interests of the rest of the EU".

She then adds the money quote, saying: "But we have to be prepared to stand up for Britain. We have to be prepared to go in there, recognising that we're not willing to accept a bad deal".

At this stage in the campaign, with less than a week to go, it is too late to expect any fundamental change in position so, for better or worse, we're stuck with this from the Conservatives – and this alone will be enough to induce some people not to vote for this party.

Not voting for the Conservatives, though, does not necessarily mean transferring to Labour, and some may even consider returning to Ukip – where there is a candidate standing.

I even briefly considered that possibility, until I saw the leaflet which came thought my letter box yesterday. It did not mention the European Union anywhere in the text, and there was only one short sentence devoted to Brexit: "Challenge the Tories on Brexit and demand that Brexit really does mean EXIT".

That simply isn't good enough for a party that came into being to fight for our withdrawal from the EU. It has lost its way and is no longer part of the fight.

Meanwhile, almost completely ignored by the legacy media (for the moment) is a study on the effects of Brexit on the German and European economy, commissioned by the (German) Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy from the Ifo Institute in Munich.

One of the key findings suggests that Brexit "will definitely be much more expensive for the UK than for Germany", although the precise costs will vary according to the nature of the final agreement. In the event of an EU-Korea style of agreement, the Institute calculates that real GDP in the UK will decrease by 0.6 percent, compared with 0.1 percent in Germany and 0.11 percent in the EU 27.

In the worst-case scenario, losses in the United Kingdom would be 1.73 percent of GDP over the long term, Germany would lose 0.23 percent and the EU 27 would average a 0.26 percent loss. In four "hard" Brexit scenarios modelled, the UK's relative loss is at least five times the EU average. In the "soft" Brexit scenarios modelled, it is at least four times as high.

From the point of view of Germany, therefore, its economy is relatively untouched by Brexit, while the UK comes off worse across the board. One might suspect, therefore, that any attempt by UK negotiators to suggest that there will be equality of misery will not be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, there are distinct variations in effect throughout the EU. Among the large EU members, Germany is the country which suffers the largest losses in all scenarios, both in percentage and absolute terms.

Where Germany's GDP drops in one scenario by 0.24 percent, France gets away with a drop of 0.2 percent, while Italy and Spain take a maximum hit of 0.15 percent.

However, a number of smaller EU Member States who are relatively badly affected. In all scenarios, Ireland suffers slightly more negatively than the UK itself. Malta and Cyprus, two countries traditionally strongly united with the UK, would also lose significantly. The Scandinavian countries, and the Benelux countries, above all Luxembourg, would lose above average amounts.

Within different sectors, there are also graduations in effect. In Germany, pharmaceutical, motor vehicle and machinery industries would lose the most, in the worst case respectively by 2.9, 1.0 and 0.6 percent.

In the financial sector, Germany could gain slightly, but the potential value-added effects are small in all scenarios. In the best case, the increase is 0.7 percent (around €500 million). Other service sectors tend to be losers, although the negative effects are very close to zero.

In the UK, though, the Institute thinks that the industrial sector is likely to suffer long-term damage. In some sectors, such as in the motor vehicle or aircraft construction, these sectors might experience falls between two and ten percent. In the case of easily substitutable metal products or chemicals, the losses could be even more pronounced, in the worst case, up to 18 percent. In the food sector, losses of five percent can be expected.

The UK's service sector would also suffer from Brexit. Interestingly, though, the financial and insurance services would not suffer the most. These are protected by strong comparative advantages. In the wholesale sector, in the field of engineering, and in certain business services, losses could amount to seven percent in the worst case.

Through this study, though, the Germans are looking at long-term effects. And while these are bad enough, over the short-term they could be considerably worse.

Furthermore, the Institute deals with non-tariff barriers by attributing a notional 15 percent ad valoram penalty. It does not factor in delays and disruption to trade, or the effects of regulatory barriers (such as in the pharmaceutical sector), which force relocation of enterprises, or which prevent trade altogether (as will be the case with meat exports from the UK unless there is substantial investment in Border Control Posts).

From this stance, therefore, the German study is under-estimating the effect of a "no deal" scenario, where the UK's "Team Brexit" walks away from the Article 50 talks.

Perhaps it is because of the unreality of such a scenario that there seems to be so much difficulty modelling it, and thus putting a realistic figure on the cost of walking away. But even from the current, limited survey, the EU can take assurances that they will be substantially less damaged than the UK.

That in itself could make the EU less responsive to the UK, and thereby make a "walk-away" that much more likely, as the EU negotiators fail to respond to UK pressure.

Certainly, the survey doesn't entirely support the argument that a "good deal" is necessarily in the interests of the rest of the EU. In fact, what the EU takes as a good deal may be very different from the UK's ideas, which means that the two sides could end up talking past each other.

On the other hand, if she took on board the survey, Mrs May might realise that she needs to step back from her facile mantra. The indications are that the EU will be entirely indifferent to her "walk-away" threats, and unconcerned by the prospect of the slight economic damage that might be caused.

"UK suffers most", needs to be her watch words. It would help better to shape the negotiations.

Richard North 03/06/2017 link

Brexit bullshit


In a classic example of the power of prestige, the BBC is quoting the head of Ireland's customs authority, who is stating that [only] up to eight percent of freight crossing the border will have to be subject to checks after Brexit.

This is Revenue Commissioner Liam Irwin who has been giving evidence to the Irish parliament's finance committee, whence he said that the authorities would try to minimise customs controls but they are required under EU law. On that basis, he argues that this would mean checks on 6-8 percent of freight, mainly on documents but with a "small number" of physical inspections.

Furthermore, Irwin says, checks would not happen at the border but at "trade facilitation posts" which would be "10 or 15 kilometres back from the border". He adds that there would also be some form of random, or risk-based, customs checks carried out by mobile units.

In the Commissioner's view, customs declarations would be made electronically and most transactions would be immediately approved. There would not be a return to a pre-1992 situation when there were customs posts at the border.

Bizarrely, the man then goes on to admit that Irish customs authorities are not currently in "any form of discussion" with the UK, which rather negates his earlier comments. At best, these could only be considered aspirational, dependent on the nature of the agreements on customs cooperation between the UK and the EU.

Not least, when it comes to customs declarations, the ability process these depend intrinsically on the degree of cross-border exchange of data which, in turn, will depend on UK conformity with EU data protection rules. This is currently open to question.

Then, Mr Irwin seems to be neglecting entirely the problem of conformity assessment, to which extent he must be presuming that the UK and the EU will be able to conclude a mutual recognition agreement (MRA). Without such an agreement, one would expect physical inspections (and specialist testing) of goods coming into Ireland from the North vastly to exceed a mere eight percent.

And this, of course, does not take into account the cross-border movement of livestock, agricultural goods and foodstuffs, which must be subject to veterinary or phytosanitary checks before they can even be submitted for customs clearance. For live animals, inspection rates can be 100 percent, while the rate might vary from 10-50 percent for the physical inspection of foodstuffs.

There is a way round this – what amounts to the "Swiss option". But this would require the UK to comply fully with EU animal health and food law, and all other relevant law, as well as carrying out full EU-style checks on imports from third countries.

For these sectors, the net effect would be the same as if the UK had never left the EU, with the proviso that the "fax law" jibe would come true. The UK would have to comply with EU law, with no direct input in its making – notwithstanding that many of the standards underwriting the law originate at global level.

What precisely businesses will have to plan for, therefore, depends on the level of agreement between the UK and the EU – nothing of which can be taken for granted. When it came to Irwin's presentation, it was perhaps just as well that Sinn Féin's Pearse Doherty questioned whether talk of an invisible border was "fantasy land stuff" as nowhere in Europe had such arrangements.

Despite that, Michel Barnier was in the European Parliament yesterday for a debate on Brexit, when he urged businesses to "move fast" to prepare for Brexit in under two years. They should not count, he says, on long transition periods to cushion the impact of Britain leaving the European Union.

"We might be working on transitional measures post-Brexit, on a phasing-out period and a phasing-in towards the new relationship, but the real transition period is now, before exit", he said. "I would like to recommend all economic players, all economic operators, to make use of this period, so that the day of this exit, probably March 2019, is as orderly as possible".

However, notwithstanding my earlier piece, this report would have it that very few have made firm decisions, and cannot until they see what kind of new trading relationship can be agreed. Putting clothes on that assertion, we see a report which tells us that 98 percent of Irish companies have no plan in place to deal with the consequences of Brexit.

This sort of finding is very much in accord with my experience working for trade bodies. Invariably, when new regulations were introduced, business owners would leave it until the last possible minute before taking steps to comply.

There is every reason to believe that we will see the something of the same dynamic with Brexit. Most will delay taking action but those who do act – such as BNP Paribas, the latest bank to announce that it is moving staff out of London - will assume the worst.

Such companies cannot be faulted. There is a good business case for assuming the worst, especially when confronted with the sort of institutional ignorance and unwarranted optimism exhibited by the likes of Irwin. His claims seem to be much of the same order as assurances on Singapore's safety after the Japanese invasion of the Malay Peninsula.

The unwarranted optimism looks even thinner when one sees this survey conducted by Deloitte, which suggests that very nearly half of German enterprises support the idea of completely excluding the UK from the EU Single Market if it does not adhere to the four freedoms.

Nor is this by any means the first time we have seen such sentiment, which reinforces the premise that Germany is not going to roll over and demand an easy ride for the UK just so that we will continue buying BMWs.

If this needed any more emphasis, we need go no further than Angela Merkel who was addressing a G20 trade union event in Berlin yesterday. She took the opportunity to remind us that everything from just-in-time auto supply chains to the free movement of workers and even their pet cats and dogs will be thrown into question by Brexit.

While Britain would be free to change rules to its own advantage after leaving, she said, the EU would have to take steps to preserve a level playing field. "If the British government ends the free movement of people, that will have its price", she said.

"That's not malice", she added. "(One) cannot expect to have all the good sides and then say there will be an upper limit of 100,000 or 200,000 EU citizens, no more, or just researchers, but please nobody else. This will not work".

The fact that so many areas of policy have for decades operated under EU rules meant that the disruption following Brexit could extend into wholly unexpected parts, she warned. "Currently, the 250,000 pets, cats and dogs that travel from Britain to the continent or the other way around each year are managed within an EU framework," she said. "Now they'll need veterinary certificates - things we don't even remember".

So, in Berlin if not Dublin - the penny is finally dropping: border controls mean more than just customs checks. Belatedly, the Financial Times is waking up to the impact Brexit will have on food safety, albeit addressing only a fraction of the issues we rehearsed in January. Give the paper another year and it might start to catch up, whence the rest of the legacy media can copy its errors.

It was, after all, the Financial Times which invented the €100 billion "divorce bill", only now to have Barnier confront Nigel Farage in the European Parliament after the former Ukip leader claimed that Brussels was trying to "bully" Britain by seeking this amount.

Dismissing the allegation that it was a "ludicrous ransom", Barnier pointed the simple truth that has evaded Farage and most of the legacy media: "There is no figure for a financial settlement between Britain and the European Union yet", he declared.

Said Barnier, such a figure "can only be established once both sides agree on a common methodology of calculations, taking into account the date of exit". The amount will depend on the methodology we adopt and the actual date of the UK's exit. It is not (me) who will set a figure", he added.

Returning to the vexed question of trade, it isn't only the Germans who are going to be playing hardball – not that this was ever the case. The Irish Times is gloomily recording that a prominent French farm leader has lobbed a proverbial grenade into the upcoming Brexit negotiations by calling for the re-establishment of a hard Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

This is Christophe Hillairet, a council member of Copa, Europe's largest farm organisation. He expressed fears that the UK would sign agreements to import food from Commonwealth countries after Brexit.

Raising the prospect of the internal border becoming a back door into the single Market, Hillairet warned that the only way to stop these imports finding their way into the Republic and the wider EU was for strict border controls to be reintroduced.

"Ireland is a big problem but for the French farmer we will need to have a hard Border between the North and the Republic as otherwise we will have a lot of products that will cross from North to South. That would be very dangerous for our producers", he told the Agra Europe website.

That once again strikes at Irwin's "fantasy land stuff", not made any better by a timid and dismally unimaginative report from the Institute of Government. While it recognises that free trade areas are "just one tool for boosting trade" and "other options may be much more effective in achieving trade policy objectives", it fails to offer any serious detail on those "other options".

Cutting through the bullshit bonanza, though, is the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung which has the Scientific Advisory Council of the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs writing to economy minister Brigitte Zypries warning that the Brexit process risks "unnecessary damage to economic relations".

The Council concedes that the mutual economic contacts are so important that it is necessary to conclude a "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement" but considers that the conclusion of such a treaty "will hardly be possible" by the planned exit date in 2019.

The Council's economists, therefore, advise Zypries to push for an intermediate step towards a free trade agreement, seeking to ensure that London joins Efta in parallel with Brexit. This, they say, would minimise disruption.

Interestingly, this follows an unrelated intervention by Liechtenstein's foreign minister Aurelia Frick, who is telling us that Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway could be part of the EU's deal with the UK after it leaves the EU.

"Solutions to soften the landing should be available to us", she said ahead of a meeting with Michel Barnier, who then promised that he would keep Efta/EEA States not only informed but consulted about the Brexit negotiations.

The UK has not yet triggered a clause in the EEA treaty, notifying the EU that it intends to leave the EEA. If it neglects this formal obligation, the clause will likely be triggered by the EU, said Dag Werno Hotler, deputy secretary general of Efta (notwithstanding that there is no expulsion clause).

Frick and her colleague, Norway's EU minister Frank Bakke Jensen, said they were "open-minded" about the UK re-joining Efta. "But the initiative would have to come from the UK. For the moment, the question is not on the table", the ministers said.

Once again, therefore, there is rustling in the undergrowth. Cut through the media bullshit and the colossal ignorance afflicting the establishment and there is sense to be had.

Richard North 18/05/2017 link

Brexit: the phony war continues


Just occasionally, one can have sympathy for journalists covering events such as Corbyn's leaked manifesto and having to pretend one is in the least interested in it.

Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter and one-time junior agriculture minister had it right in an acerbic comment to the BBC about being 20 points behind in the polls and the need to "get real", salvaging enough MPs from the wreck of a campaign to form a credible opposition in the next Parliament.

Bradshaw is one of those MPs who, on the face of it is fairly safe, with a 7,183 majority at the 2015 election, increasing his share against the trend. But his is a seat which saw the Ukip vote increase from just short of 2K in 2010 to over five thousand in 2015. With the collapse of the Ukip vote and a swing to the Conservatives, Bradshaw is actually vulnerable.

As to Corbyn's manifesto – well, who does care? But the irony is that his plans to nationalise the railways, energy and the post are made that much easier by Brexit – not that any of the disinterested hacks actually realised this. Perhaps this was Corbyn's coded message, saying he was in favour of leaving the EU – but if it was, no one noticed.

It's a pity though that Corbyn didn't add water to his list of renationalisation – not that it should be nationalised as such. Water was never owned by the national government which, in order to sell it off, expropriated municipal assets, stealing them from their rightful owners. The companies were never the government's to sell, and should be returned.

Apart from making wealthy Singaporean hedge fund owners even more wealthy, privatisation does not seem to have achieved much else. With talk of another drought in the air, the Guardian reports that customers are being asked to save water, but more than 20 percent of water is lost before it reaches homes and leakage levels are not declining.

Data from the water industry regulator Ofwat shows more than three billion litres of water leaks every day, a level unchanged for at least four years and just seven percent lower than the level in 2000.

Meanwhile, the Brexit action moved to Dublin where Michel Barnier was accorded the rare honour (unique for a non-head of state) of addressing the joint houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament) on the Brexit negotiations.

That is not to say that he actually conveyed anything new. He reaffirmed that Brexit changes the external borders of the EU and promised to work with the Irish "to avoid a hard border", but went nowhere towards telling his audience how this would be done.

One worries a little, though, when the man says that "Customs controls are part of EU border management" and that, "They protect the single market. They protect our food safety and our standards".

Strictly, they don't protect food safety. In the litany of protections, these "official controls" are veterinary and phytosanitary checks which are entirely separate and must be completed before relevant products are submitted for customs clearance.

If Barnier can't get this small but important detail right, then one wonders just how much a grip of the detail he really has, and whether he fully understands which is involved when the Irish border becomes the final frontier between the EU and the outside world.

The absence of such details are lending a surreal aspect to the Brexit non-debate, and crucial technical issues are placed "on hold", and what little discussion there was has evaporated. Beyond looking for "flexible and imaginative solutions", we're no further forward in finding a solution for the Irish border problem, especially if it has to "respect the integrity of the EU legal order".

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we got a nervous comment from Gabriel Fagan, chief economist of the Irish Central Bank. He states the obvious, that the Irish economy is particularly vulnerable to any new tariff or regulatory barriers with the UK, which may arise as a result of Brexit.

He warns that within 10 years of a "hard Brexit", the number of people employed would be 40,000 fewer, compared with a no-Brexit scenario. Some small and medium-sized Irish businesses are "likely to be among the hardest hit".

Yet all we actually got from Barnier was "motherhood and apple pie" sentiment, with the man telling us that, "if we put things in the right order, if we negotiate with mutual respect, without any aggression and naïvety, and if we are open to finding solutions, there is no reason why our strong Europe cannot maintain a strong relationship with the UK".

One notes the insertion of the word "naïvety" and wonders whether this was directed at Mrs May or her "Ultras", but if this was another coded message, it possibly conveys much the same as Junker was trying to tell us about the demeanour of Mrs May and her residence on other galaxies.

Today, Barnier is to visit an Irish dairy cooperative in the border areas of Ireland. Maybe we'll get more detail from this, although I somehow doubt it. Until the UK general election is over, we seem to have moved into a new phase of the phoney war.

Maybe it's just as well that, at this point, David Cameron should intervene to urge Mrs May to stand firm against her "Ultras". Campaigning in Crewe yesterday, he suggested that if she won a big majority she would be better equipped to fight for a "soft Brexit" – whatever that means.

"This is one of the most defining elections I can remember where it's so important that the Conservatives win and win well, so Theresa can negotiate that Brexit deal and stand up to people who want an extreme Brexit, either here or in Brussels", he said.

Perhaps, though, Mrs May has already made her mind up on this, having just appointed former European Commission official, Peter Hill, as her principal private secretary official.

Hill, who worked in Peter Mandelson's cabinet in Brussels when he was trade commissioner, has served as director of strategy at the Foreign Office since 2013. He is said to be one of the few people in the top ranks of British government with experience of trade negotiations. It is thought that his appointment will reassure critics of the Government's current stance on Brexit.

Others are also taking comfort from the indication that Mrs May is favouring candidates who support a "soft Brexit" agenda, blocking people such as Daniel Hannan and David Bannerman, Tory MEPs who are looking for a new home to replace the Brussels gravy train.

But, where one door opens, another slams shut – this one in the face of Sara Roebuck, who is doing a double masters in European politics at Sciences Po Paris and the London School of Economics.

She recently attended a careers event in Brussels with her university class to discuss job prospects at institutions like the European Parliament or the European Commission, only to be told that getting a job with European Union (EU) institutions will be "out of the question" after Brexit.

Instead, advisers at the EU department that recruits public servants told the 24-year-old she would have to obtain French nationality in order to have any chance of following that career path.

One hopes that the mention of French nationality was related to Sara Roebuck's current location in Paris, otherwise there is the fear that, with no British counterbalance, the French are going to take over running the EU – except that many already believe they do.

But this is very much a sign of things to come. What little influence the UK exerts in les couloirs of Brussels is likely to be further diminished, yet there is probably not going to be any compensating increase in global bodies until we've established a greater presence (with all the financial costs that that implies).

It would be nice to think that, already, the FCO (together with the Department for International Trade) are planning a massive uplift in recruitment, to staff posts in global institutions, although there is no sign of that happening yet. In fact, if we are to believe what we are told, the UK is going to have trouble recruiting enough people to match the team put up by Brussels to negotiate Brexit.

Perhaps if Mrs May continues to keep it vague, it will at least minimise the pressure on human resources and, when we go under, there will be fewer redundancy notices to hand out. There must be some reason for the prime minister's silence on Brexit – and this is more logical than most.

Richard North 12/05/2017 link

Brexit: the media wot dun it?


Sunday saw a very strange story in the Observer, described by Lost Leonardo in a masterful put-down as "Carole Cadwalladr's strange fever dream". Cadwalladr's thesis is that Britain's vote to leave the EU was not a legitimate expression of the popular will - a culmination of years of condescension and neglect from an increasingly discredited political class.

It was instead the result of a right-wing plot peopled by billionaires and "data scientists" to target and subtly coerce a small but significant number of credulous Facebook users to shuffle to the voting booths on 23 June and mark the box labelled "Leave the European Union" with an "X".

That, wrote Lost Leonardo, "may sound like the backstory for one of the lesser Bond films (maybe something from the Pierce Brosnan era), but Cadwalladr would have us believe (I'm sure that she believes) that 'it were the big data wot won it'".

This one is going to run and run, but just to prove that a stopped clock is occasionally right, we have the Telegraph traducing the effects of social media. It can generate a lot of heat and light, the paper says. "But it does not uncover any new information, move the story on, and it rarely influences anyone beyond a small group of hardcore activists".

Our own experiences of using social media during the referendum campaign, where we did our own social media advertising to test the waters. The experiment was not a success. And, as a codicil, when we recently stopped promoting posts on Twitter, we experienced a substantial increase in the hit rate.

Nothing of this is conclusive, but the Cummings claims that "big data" won the referendum need to be taken with a pinch of salt of a size that would match the annual output of Cheshire.

And also casting doubt on the "big data" thesis are researchers from King's College, London in the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power.  They have done an analysis of legacy media coverage during the official campaign, concluding that it was the UK's most divisive, hostile, negative and fear-provoking of the 21st century.

This, they say, was partly due to the rhetoric and approaches of the campaigns themselves, but was encouraged and enflamed by a highly partisan national media.

Remain set the campaign agenda early on – focusing on the potential damaging economic consequences of Brexit, seeking and publicising endorsements of staying in the EU from domestic and international politicians and institutions. Leave, however, successfully undermined the economic warnings of Remain by questioning the campaign leaders' honesty, their expertise, their motivation, and by presenting the whole economic narrative as a cynical strategy to frighten people into voting for the status quo.

As a consequence, they say, Remain lost many of the benefits normally associated with agenda-setting. Indeed, by the latter part of the referendum campaign Leave had managed to turn Remain's ability to set the agenda into a liability, by characterising the authoritative figures and institutions that supported Remain as self-interested, dishonest and unpatriotic.

What the researchers do recognise, though, is that national media coverage represented only one factor influencing people's decision to vote in the referendum.

Many people, they say, would have made up their mind before the campaign began. Others were undoubtedly guided by the views of their family, friends and colleagues. Others were swayed by digital communications sent directly to their email inbox or to their social media feed.

All these things must be true and it surely must be the case that the leave campaign started in 1975 when the "no" side failed to win. It intensified when John Major foisted Maastricht on us, creating a movement which gave rise to Ukip. The attempts by Blair to take the UK into the euro further motivated the resistance and James Goldsmith with his Referendum Party put the idea of a referendum on the map.

What then set the seal on the issue was the establishment's contempt for democracy in its handling of the European Constitution and the cynical pretence that the Lisbon Treaty was simply a "tidying up exercise". The response inexorably forced David Cameron into promising a referendum in his 2015 manifesto and, by then, the die was cast. The referendum was there to win, or lose.

However, the parasitic Dominic Cummings and his partner in crime, Matthew Elliott, decided that direct digital communication was the way forward. With resources furnished by their billionaire sponsors, their official Vote Leave campaign spent millions on buying up "nearly a billion targeted digital adverts", accounting for approximately 98 percent of their spend – with minimal popular support.

As Joshua Carrington pointed out in the New Statesman, however, the Vote Leave campaign wasn't nearly as clever as it thinks it was. Their techniques were nothing special – just expensive and unproven.

Nor was Vote Leave on its own. Digital communication was equally important to Stronger In, which employed Tom Edmonds, joint director of the Conservatives' 2015 digital election campaign, and Jim Messina, who was campaign manager for Barack Obama in 2012. Both sides were playing the same tunes.

In terms of performance, both sides were lacklustre. On balance, Stronger In was more inept, which probably saved the day. Despite Cummings's best attempts to lose us the game, "Leave" managed to prevail.

According to King's College, the legacy media, including broadcast outlets, played at least three crucial roles: directly influencing the public, indirectly influencing the public, and influencing the campaigns themselves. In terms of direct influence, mainstream media still reached almost the entire UK population on a regular basis. In fact, during the campaign itself, most national print circulations and online readership rose.

It is likely, the Kings researchers think, that the legacy media generated much of the news that was "liked" and "shared" on social networks – indirectly influencing people through sharing and via online discussion. Moreover, the media strongly influenced politicians and campaigners who, in turn, fed into the campaign.

In all, therefore, there were multiple influences in place and there is no evidence whatsoever to support any thesis that puts one technique or group above another. The official campaigns were messy, scrappy, ill-focused and both reliant on lies and misinformation. Either or both could have lost it and, in our view, Vote Leave very nearly did.

The Kings researchers write that the rancorous, bitter way in which the referendum campaign was fought (by the official campaigns) was both reflected in, and enhanced by, the media coverage. The majority of media organisations that could take sides – i.e., excluding public service broadcasters - did so, often uncompromisingly.

Their partisanship was then played out in much of their coverage – both in their selection and framing of news and in their editorials, leader columns and their choice of front-page stories. Eventually the campaign became framed as us-versus-them, pro-establishment versus anti-establishment, pro-immigration versus anti-immigration, nationalist versus internationalist.

In reality, it always was an anti-establishment vote. Only latterly did Vote Leave wake up to that, and too late to marshal sentiment that had been building for decades. The campaign was a mirror, not a megaphone, with the self-congratulation that came afterwards entirely unwarranted.

Thus the Kings researchers remark that much of the acrimony, partiality and suspicions of dishonesty that characterised the campaign has remained. The consequences of the campaign are still being played out, and will continue to be throughout the period that Britain negotiates its departure from the EU and beyond.

They conclude that the implications of a divisive, antagonistic and hyper-partisan campaign – by the campaigners themselves as much as by many national media outlets – is likely to shape British politics for the foreseeable future. And, with that, we could not possibly disagree.

Richard North 11/05/2017 link

Brexit: "insurgents" on the run


One of the dreams of political chaos theorists was that Le Pen should win the French presidential election, adding to what has been seen as a populist trend set by the EU referendum and Donald Trump's victory.

But anyone who was really expecting Le Pen to take the presidency will have been severely disappointed. The establishment choice, Emmanuel Macron, has stormed to victory, crushing his opponent with 65.5 percent of the vote against the challenger's 34.5 percent, giving him an unassailable 31 percent lead.

However, before getting too triumphant, this compares relatively poorly with the performance of Jacques Chirac who, in 2002 beat Le Pen père with 82.21 percent of the vote, against 17.79 percent. And that was on an 80 percent turnout, compared with the 74 percent this time round.

On the back of Ukip's collapse and an imminent Conservative victory, the order of things seem to be re-asserting themselves. Oddly enough, it is the demise of Ukip which is giving the Conservatives their chance.

We see the Telegraph reporting that the party's collapse could help the Tories capture 45 seats, the reversal of the Ukip effect that we identified in 2005. In 2010, we estimated that the effect had cost the Tories 41 seats, very close to the level that they are now expected to recover.

That actually has been the real impact of Ukip, not in gaining seats but in splitting the vote and weakening the Tories, thereby exerting the leverage that eventually led to David Cameron conceding a referendum.

Now, it's almost as if we're back to "normal" politics, and not only in the UK. Throughout Europe, after the Dutch failed to give Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV) its breakthrough and the Austrians robbed Norbert Hofer of his victory, the "insurgents" are on the run.

The Guardian certainly seems to think so, quoting Michiel de Bruin of BMO Global Asset Management, who comments that the win "sends a clear signal that anti-EU populist parties are unable to secure a power base across the political landscape in continental Europe".

The only thing, of course, is that politics are not back to normal. Brexit is real and casts a shadow over the entire European "dream". Mr Macron and his partner-to-be Angela Merkel will have their work cut out, isolating the UK and containing the "contagion".

At 39 years of age, Macron becomes France's youngest president and is set to join Angela Merkel as the other half of the Franco-German "motor", ready to do battle with les rosbiffs over Brexit.

The French return to orthodoxy, by a significant margin, means that any hopes of disunity amongst the main players in the Brexit "theatre" will have reduced. And, if as expected, Merkel retakes the chancellorship in the autumn, the UK will be confronting a powerful orthodoxy which is unlikely to grant it many concessions.

During his presidential campaign, Macron had warned that Brexit negotiations would be "no walk in the park", pledging to protect the Single Market and the ECJ. At his victory party in the grand central courtyard of Paris's Louvre Museum, to the strains of Beethoven's Ode to Joy, he delivered a victory speech in which he spoke of "rebuilding our Europe" and working to "rebuild ties between Europe and its citizens".

Juncker perhaps summed it up for his "colleagues", posting on Twitter that he was "happy that the French chose a European future". European Council president Tusk, on the other hand, congratulated the "French people for choosing Liberty, Equality and Fraternity over tyranny of fake news".

Predictably, though, Arron Bank's Leave.EU delivered a different message. It tweeted that the French people had once again "rolled over" just as they had done in 1940 – except this time they saved Germany "the bullets and the fuel". The tweet attached a picture of a newspaper cutting from 1940 reporting the surrender of France to the Nazis.

Picking up on the same theme, former Ukip leader Farage tweeted: "A giant deceit has been voted for today. Macron will be Juncker's puppet".

Therein lie the extremes – the great divide. Much will depend on the extent to which Mrs May and "Team Brexit" can distance themselves from this sort of rhetoric. But, either way, a milestone was passed on Sunday. For better or worse, we know where we stand.

Richard North 08/05/2017 link

Booker: tackling the immigration riddle


Although immigration was high profile during the referendum campaign (or the latter part of it), it has not been as prominent of late with the so-called "divorce bill" taking the headlines.

Nevertheless, Booker has chosen this subject for this week's column, picking up some of the issues that have had less coverage than perhaps should have been the case.

The greatest problem with immigration, Booker writes, is that it is so much more fiendishly complicated than is usually allowed for. For a start, of course, the problem is worldwide, as so many people want to move from poor countries to those that are richer and safer: Africans and Middle Easterners to Europe, eastern Europeans to western Europe, Mexicans to the US, Asians to Australia.

From a British point of view, the cry may seem understandable that we should "take back control of our borders". In recent years, more people have poured into these islands than all those who did so between 1066 and 2010. Even official projections show that within a decade or so, our population may top 70 million (up from 56 million 30 years ago). We all know about the stresses this is already imposing on housing, schools, the NHS and wages.

But when it comes to what might be done about it, there are two reasons why it is so important not to resort to crude and emotive over-simplifications.

One is the undoubted fact that much immigration has been hugely beneficial. Without immigrants at every level, so much of our national life would be the poorer: from the City of London and foreign doctors and nurses in our hospitals to the staffing of our care homes; from hard-working eastern Europeans picking fruit and veg or serving in our restaurants to Albanian car washers and those proverbial Polish plumbers.

The first difficulty is trying to devise a system that could distinguish between immigrants who are welcome and useful and those who are neither. These, for instance, include criminals we cannot deport, the Romanian gangs who seem to dominate cashpoint fraud, even the Roma beggars on our streets.

They also include those from the Asian sub-continent who have established alien enclaves in our cities, not least those men from the more tribal parts of Pakistan who played a dominant part in the wholesale abuse of young girls in towns such as Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford.

But the second huge problem is that so much immigration is not covered by EU laws but by a thicket of other international rules, such as the UN Refugee Convention, our legacy obligations to citizens of the Commonwealth and, above all, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as interpreted by judges both in Strasbourg and Britain itself.

More than half of our immigrant population comes from outside the EU; by far the largest group, 3.5 million, are from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. And 18 percent of immigrants are currently entering under the "family reunion" Article 8 clause of the ECHR, which can allow one immigrant who has arrived to bring in many more members of his family. Even when Britain leaves the EU, this will remain.

The truth is that no country in the world has yet found a workable way to meet all these pressures. The solutions offered all seem to be riddled with holes, from President Trump's absurd Mexican wall to the much-touted Australian points system, which has given that country an immigrant population of 27 percent, more than twice as large as our own.

In many ways, Britain's problems are not as grim as those faced by other European countries, where immigration has become a heated issue, such as Italy, Greece, France, Hungary, Germany and Sweden. But if we do seem to have a particular problem, accounting for the massive surge in the past few years, this is chiefly because our economy has been doing comparatively so well.

It is this, not our benefits system, that in the past two years alone has attracted record net immigration to our shores of more than 600,000. And the irony is, Booker concludes, that the one certain way in which those numbers could be dramatically reduced would be for our Brexit negotiations to fail so badly that our economy would no longer be a magnet for them.

Obviously that is something none of us wishes to see. But if Brexit can somehow leave us with the access to our largest export market and the thriving economy we are promised, we will still be left with a problem far more intractable than most discussion of this issue has so far allowed for. Strangely enough, the latest figures from the ONS show that EU net immigration marginally exceeded non-EU immigration (year ending September 2016).

In the post-referendum period, however, it is also the case that EU immigration dropped by a significant amount and it is reasonable to expect a continued fall while the uncertainty remains.

There are, for instance, reports of the number of EU nationals registering as nurses in England has dropped by 92 percent since the referendum. A record number are quitting the NHS.

If this becomes a continuing trend, we could end up with a long-term drop in EU migrants without any formal action being taken. We could even have the perverse situation where the UK kept the freedom of movement channels open but nobody came to the party.

The corollary of this, of course, is that proportionately – if not in absolute terms - immigration from the rest of the world goes up. As Booker indicates, only one part of the problem is solved.

Should the UK economy remain stable, however, the job market will continue to pull migrants into the country. And, with 37 million visitors coming to this country each year, policing our borders isn't going to get any easier.

And therein lies the real issue. The UK has a tradition of open borders which long precedes our membership of the EEC. As I recalled in a previous blogpost we were signing up free movement deals with our European neighbours back in 1946 and it seems hardly likely that, post-Brexit, we will be erecting a Mexico-like wall on the lines advocated by Mr Trump.

Basically, free movement is and has been since the end of the Second World War, an important part of the UK economy, comprising in the main tourism, services and education provision. Interruption of that flow could have repercussions that go way beyond the effects on the jobs market.

If the truth were told by the more extremist "kippers" though, their main concern is not white immigrants from European countries but coloured Muslims – mainly from Pakistan. But this is a prejudice that dare not speak its name, so Farage chose to make the "non-racist" pitch for shutting down freedom of movement from the EU.

But since this is going to have only a marginal effect on the overall problem – and was never really the real problem anyway – Brexit in many ways is a distraction from the broader failure of the UK to manage its borders, even where it had powers to do so.

I think we all recall the ongoing scandals concerning the UK Border Agency and the fact that Theresa May announced that it was to be abolished in March 2013, after it had been declared "not fit for purpose". Four years on, there is no evidence that border controls are any better and there is no good reason to believe that Brexit is going miraculously to increase the competence of HMG.

On that basis, long after we have left the EU, and can no longer blame it for our failures, immigration is going to be as much a "riddle" as it is now. But then, Ukip will be long gone leaving a vacuum in the public discourse. And if we're not going to solve the problem, we're going to have to find a whole new set of things (and people) to blame.

I suppose, at least, that the change in the rhetoric might be refreshing – until that too begins to pall. Then, perhaps, we might get down to analysing and addressing the real problems.

Richard North 07/05/2017 link

Brexit: the end of Ukip


It was Churchill, as we are recently reminded, who said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Something similar could be said of Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party. She has to be the worst possible person to lead us through the complexities of Brexit, except for all the others.

Corbyn, quite obviously, is a disaster area but, in the nature of things – as we know it – Labour is the only other party which has (or used to have) a credible chance of forming a government. So it is basically May or Corbyn. In other words, it can only be May.

That much comes over from Lord Ashcroft's latest focus groups, from which he offers us this commentary:
The widespread feeling in the groups, even among many former Labour voters, was that Mrs. May was by far the best person to speak for Britain in the Brexit negotiations, not least because the alternative was unthinkable: "I can't imagine Jeremy Corbyn sitting with 27 EU leaders on the other side"; "Labour would kind of pander to what other people want and kind of mess it up in the end".
On the other hand, if we don't entirely trust May (or the Conservatives) then we keep our options open and vote Ukip with the intention of holding their feet to the fire.

The dynamics are such that the activities of Ukip have had a real and measurable effect on the electoral prospects of the Conservatives, effectively by acting as the party's "Jiminy Cricket" conscience. An effective party could continue to perform the same role.

But that was to reckon without Paul Nuttall, the idiot's idiot, who appointed Gerard Batten as his Brexit spokesman – the man who has believes that Article 50 is a "trap" and argues that we should immediately repeal the ECA and walk away from the EU.

A vox pop on the BBC news, speaking with an elderly voter in Boston - formerly a stronghold of the party – said it all. "They don't seem have any idea of how to do Brexit", he declared of Ukip, having admitted to supporting the Conservative Party in Thursday's local government elections.

That, for the moment, seems to be the epitaph of the Party – one which was seeking under the leadership of Nuttall to reinvent itself as the slayer of Labour, yet mistakenly put issues cast as "Islamophobic" at the top of its agenda in a contest that Mrs May was calling the "Brexit election".

Thus, the Party which came into being in the first place to fight for our withdrawal from the European Union has, when it comes to the crunch, no ideas of how to manage the process. It has written itself out of the script.

Yet, we can hardly pretend that we didn't see it coming. In December last, we were making it plain that Nuttall was a waste of oxygen, and so it has turned out to be. As the Guardian gleefully tells us, he has presided over an electoral collapse with every single councillor facing election having suffered defeat.

By no means all the blame, though, can be placed at door of this hapless man who is currently the party leader. Nigel Farage who, since he engineered the removal of Alan Sked as the first leader of the party, has turned it into his own private fiefdom. And, under his control, Farage – and Farage alone – has prevented to party developing intellectually to the point where it could offer a credible exit plan for the situation we now face.

Thus, we have an exit party with nothing to say about our exit, leaving a wreck which is no longer capable of serving any useful purpose.

Perversely, though, there is probably no time in our recent history when we have needed Ukip more – or a party which can fulfil the role it was set up to undertake. As Bruno Waterfield writes in The Times, we have in Mrs May a fantasist almost on the scale of Paul Nuttall himself.

Her allegation of "a sinister Brussels conspiracy against her in the general election could not be more absurd or untrue", he writes, adding: "In the absence of any real opposition, the prime minister has conjured up a bogeyman and, one suspects, a convenient alibi for when things go wrong".

It is never healthy for a democracy (or a nation) to have any one party which is overly strong and, as we head for something which could end up looking like a one party state, we desperately need an effective opposition. In the absence of Labour, Ukip could have filled the vacuum on Brexit, except that it has vacated the field and has no capacity to stage a recovery.

One of its erstwhile supporters, Arron Banks, says he is to launch his own political movement in the autumn, after the general election – one with "radical policies and direct democracy".

When I first met the man, we discussed the chequered history of wealthy businessmen who thought they could apply their skills to politics, only to sink without trace. And that is most likely the fate of Banks. His grip on politics is about as inept as was his handling of the leave campaign and, if he thinks he can rely on Farage to launch his movement (as appears to be the case) then his ambitions are doomed. He needs to stick to insurance.

Meanwhile, we have a dangerous political vacuum, and one that is not going to be filled any time soon by a Ukip substitute. There isn't time to start a new party and build up a support base that will have any effect on the Brexit process.

The one weapon we have at our disposal, however, is the ability to pin the responsibility for any failure of the Brexit process on Mrs May and her Conservatives. She (as Waterfield indicates) will want to pin any blame on the intransigence of the "colleagues", but the success or otherwise will actually depend on her actions and of the conduct of her "Team Brexit".

By shadowing her moves, analysing them and – if and when appropriate – apportioning the blame correctly – we can make sure that there is an electoral penalty attached to failure.

By 2022, we can assume that – after the expected collapse of the Labour Party in this general election – Corbyn will be long gone. The party will have had five years to stage a Blair-like revival. It will therefore, we trust, be in a position to mount a credible electoral challenge.

And while Mrs May and her troops are riding high at the moment, a failure to manage the Brexit process could (and most likely will) have a devastating effect on the country. With the blame laid at Mrs May's door, this could ensure her defeat in the 2022 general election and the Conservatives out of office for a generation.

In terms, a week may be a long time in politics, but five years is the mere blink of an eye. Making it clear to Mrs May that she is on notice and that a terrible revenge awaits any failure should have, at the very least, a tempering effect on the wilder excesses of the Tory "Ultras".

For the moment, we must reconcile ourselves to the prospect of a major Tory victory in June, and a struggle to keep the Brexit process on the rails, with no help from Ukip.

There is sadness in that observation though. There were good people in Ukip and they deserved better leadership than they got. And we as a nation deserve more from our political process then we are getting. If we cannot find a way of making it work better, the consequences don't bear thinking about.

Richard North 06/05/2017 link

Brexit: Theresa May the wrecker


Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse, it just did. Mrs May declared war on Brussels.

After calling on the Queen to dissolve Parliament, the prime minister then addressed the nation from her makeshift lectern in Downing Street to accuse the EU of trying to influence the result of the general election by maliciously leaking the content of her Wednesday dinner discussions.

In what is being called an "aggressive and unusual speech", she tore into some EU leaders and officials, and said Britain would not allow the "bureaucrats of Brussels run over us".

"Britain’s negotiating position in Europe has been misrepresented in the continental press", she said, adding that "the European Commission's negotiating stance has hardened" and threats against Britain had been issued by European politicians and officials. "All of these acts", she claimed, "have been deliberately timed to affect the result of the general election that will take place on 8 June".

However, given that UK newspapers had released some snippets on the dinner, and details had been featured on the front page of the Sunday Times, I'm struggling with the idea that this was set up to damage May's electoral prospects.

Within the full text of the speech, though, we see Mrs May reverting to type, with her telling us: "We continue to believe that no deal is better for Britain than a bad deal".

But "we want a deal", she says. "We want a deep and special partnership with the European Union. And we want the EU to succeed". And then the paranoia emerges:
… the events of the last few days have shown that - whatever our wishes, and however reasonable the positions of Europe's other leaders - there are some in Brussels who do not want these talks to succeed. Who do not want Britain to prosper. So now more than ever we need to be led by a Prime Minister and a Government that is strong and stable.
But this is not just paranoia – it is quite obviously an over attempt to milk the anti-Brussels sentiment for electoral purposes. Rather than defuse an already tense situation, she is ramping up the rhetoric in a way that can bode no good at all.

The essence of what Mrs May is telling us is that the election is a choice between her and Jeremy Corbyn. With her, we get "strong and stable leadership" and "an approach to Brexit that locks in economic growth, jobs for our children and strong finances for the NHS and the country's schools". With Corbyn, we a hung parliament and a coalition of chaos .

And for this, it appears that she is prepared, effectively, to destroy relations with the rest of the EU and thereby ensure that we end up with the "no deal" scenario.

Meanwhile, away from this strange new galaxy inhabited by Mrs May, most Tories and almost all of the media, we had Michel Barnier addressing the remaining residents of planet Earth, telling us how the EU wants to manage the negotiations. The plans comprise two parts, a recommendation for a decision and an annex, setting out the detail.

But before this message could even be mangled by transmission though inter-galactical space, Mrs May had already delivered her "election winning speech", drowning out any detail. We've now got to the stage where rationality has packed up its bags and left town, making Barnier's message yesterday's news before the day had even had the chance to become yesterday.

Before that had happened, Sky News was contemplating the toxic atmosphere and asking whether the talks were collapsing before they had even begun. Now they barely need to ask, as the atmosphere has gone from toxic to radioactive.

To be blunt, it is difficult to imagine what, if anything, can be recovered from Mrs May's intervention. We are seeing the Independent report that relations with the EU have hit a new low after this "venomous" attack on European politicians.

All of a sudden, the electoral calculus has changed beyond all recognition. While Mrs May claims that only she can bring the Brexit negotiations to a successful conclusion, she has just turned herself into the one person in the world who cannot bring the negotiations to any conclusion. Far from being a choice between her and Corbyn, she has turned the election into a choice of anyone but May.

Possibly, even probably, though, the electorate cannot change tack so fast that it can ditch May and her Tories – and in any case the prospect of Corbyn as prime minister is so uniquely awful that Hell would have to freeze over before many of us could contemplate voting Labour.

That leaves us in a bizarre, if not impossible position. From a former "remainer" and a "steady pair of hands", Mrs May is displaying a degree of recklessness that would put the most extreme of the "Ultras" to shame. Almost single-handedly, she seems intent on wrecking any chance we ever had of achieving a sensible Brexit.

Yet, most likely, in this poisonous, post-referendum aftermath, where attitudes are hardening and intolerance stalks the land, Mrs May most likely feels that this is the best way of capturing the Ukip vote and other Tory deserters, to give her a record-breaking majority.

What she may have to deal with though, is the response of 48 percent of the electorate who voted to remain at the referendum, and the unknown but considerable proportion of leavers who were looking for a rational, ordered exit. For those, a vote for May is not so very far from tantamount to national suicide.

The big question, therefore – for me, at any rate – is whether, when the implications of what May has just done properly sink in, there will be an electoral turn-round of unprecedented proportions, as voters desert Mrs May in their millions.

But there, again, we have the Corbyn factor. Never more has the nation needed an effective opposition – and never has it been less well served. This is not only a crisis of government but a crisis of opposition.

This alone may enough to allow the siren voices of the "no deal" brigade to prevail, backed by the Telegraph which has descended into a new level of madness. They will drive us back into the dark ages with their insane mantras and their populist rhetoric.

Yet, at the margins, we see JP Morgan making plans to "move hundreds of jobs from London". This is a carefully thought-out and considered move. While we are poised to vote with our pencils on 8 June, business is already voting with its feet and what is at present a trickle could become a flood.

The "wrecker" May could well end up presiding over an economic wasteland, the like of which we have not seen since the 1920s, in a self-induced orgy of destruction that has no parallel. Even as it stands, we have never seen the like of it.

Richard North 04/05/2017 link

Brexit - the first year - New e-book by Richard North
Brexit - the first year - New e-book by Richard North
Buy Now

Log in

Sign THA
Think Defence

The Many, Not the Few