The Thin End

Brexit isn't an ideal. It might break the cosy economic and political illusion that all growth and trade is good. But there is little thinking behind it. It won't lead to better trade. It won't save our planet.

Britain's first budget since leaving the EU shows little to no Brexit dividend.  Digesting the UK Chancellor's budget will take a bit of time...just a bit.  But it is already clear that there is little of the trumpeted Brexit bonanza.  There is no windfall from Brexit. Of course, some will argue that there was never going to be any. Instead, the government has abandoned its economic principles, planning now to increase borrowing to spend on big infrastructure projects and cope with the coronavirus pandemic.   It is a crisis budget. We saw none of the £350 million a week for the NHS that adorned Boris Johnson's Leave campaign bus.  We did get an extra £6 bn for the NHS, which is woefully short of the £18 billion that was suggested as a bonus from Brexit! Of course, nobody believed the battle bus figure in any event.  It was a porky pie.  Not only did it get the number wrong for our payments into the EU, but it was also a sleight of hand to s...

The UK government has published its position in trade talks with the United States.  At the outset, it makes clear that the NHS is not on the table, nor what the NHS pays for drugs.  "The NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table. The NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic. Any agreement will ensure high standards and protections for consumers and workers, and will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards." This is good news if they stick with those pledges. The government must resist giving under pressure, and pressure there will be.  The US will want concessions if it is to provide more favourable access to its markets. It is a market that the UK will increasingly depend upon unless it can strike a good deal with the EU. As with our relationship with the EU, ...

One thing that strikes me about Brexit is how readily people entrenched in the in-out camps.  For either side, the reasons were 'obvious' - so obvious that neither side could see the point of view of the other. One oddity is that the Left had more reason to vote leave and 'destroy' the European dream than had the right. Yet, on the whole, the liberal left was taken on the mantle of knights in shining armour to defend the EU.   It left Jeremy Corbyn on a limb - his instinct was to Leave.  But his party had become overwhelmingly pro-EU. Once upon a time, it was mainly the Left who campaigned against British membership.  For Tony Benn, it was a question of sovereignty.  The left entrenched into an anti-EU position.  An 'ever closer union' based on capitalism was not for them the utopia they sought. During the referendum, I campaigned to remain in the EU, but I always understood the arguments for leaving.  Remainers wonder what went wrong. What wen...

Little has come from the Summit at Davos, or at least not much that indicates the major economies are coming together to tackle the pressing issue of our time: climate change.  Political leaders are more interested in promoting growth in world trade than in tackling its environmental consequences.  They are fighting over tariffs, but none of them really wants to restrict world trade.  Yet, that is what needs to be done if they are to stop carbon emissions.  A recent report  for the OECD projected carbon emissions from global freight transport is set to increase four-fold over the next quarter of a century.  This has to be added to the carbon emissions from manufacturing.   This is the carbon footprint of global trade.  Global trade is killing our planet, and there is little prospect of anything being done to stop it. President Trump attacked the 'prophets of doom' and the 'pessimists' over climate change. The child, Greta Thunberg says ...

What is the United Kingdom?  What is it for? We know historically how it came about, but what now binds these nations together apart from its legal relationship?  The answer to that is more interesting than it seems. Those who work together, including nation-states,  usually do so because they have common objectives and a cultural alliance.  To be British in large part was once defined by its empire.  British colonialism was English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish.  It gave the 'British people' a commonality.  We were not simply four nations occupying the British Isles. The Monarchy was moulded in the image of this empire.  The monarchy was carefully crafted despite its German heritage. But the Empire has long gone, and the United Kingdom looked to Europe with its membership of the European Union.  Now, most likely,  that visions will also be gone. The more fragile our relationship with the world, the more fragile is the unity of th...

The establishment is rattled, not so much that they believe Jeremy Corbyn will win the general election, but that the circumstances might arise where he leads a minority administration and gets the keys to Downing Street. The Tories have a substantial lead in the opinion polls, but Corbyn appears to be edging up. The establishment don't like it. It makes them nervous. The wealthiest are threatening to leave, just as Corbyn challenges their ascendancy. The wealthiest are called 'wealth creators', the poorest are called...well we can leave that to the Tories, but remember the division they tried to create between 'strivers' and 'skivers'? It is, of course, the Tories who are 'unfit' to govern because they don't govern for everyone. They are happy to keep in place a system where inequality and poverty benefit the wealthiest. That is now the establishment. If Corbyn edges up in the polls, the more likely it is that demographic difference...

Being 'neutral' in any people's vote may be a game-changer. We suspect there is a nervousness creeping into the Tory party election HQ.   They have, it seems, a commanding lead in the opinion polls.  It should see them through.  Could Jeremy Corbyn's Labour pull it back? If you set out to paint your opponent as 'unfit' to be prime minister, this creates a problem when the more voters see him, he comes across as eminently reasonable.   This is what happened with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017.  It could happen again, and the next week will indicate whether this is happening. Since the election was called,  Labour has been closing the gap, slowly.   Their manifesto launch went well, and Jeremy Corbyn has performed well in both the head-to-head debate with Boris Johnson and on  BBCQT.   Boris bumbled his way through.  There wasn't exactly a knock-out blow, but focusing on Brexit is wearing thin when voters are beginning to express concern abou...

So, did we learn much from the election debate between Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and Tory Boris Johnson?  No, of course not.  We never really do.  The spin doctors scurry around in the aftermath, trying to convince the media and press that their man won.  We won't know what impact it has if any for a few days.  In the past, the quick spin has not reflected the real impact on voters. We go through a charade of questions which are mostly of the 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind.  They specifically cannot be answered clearly.   I think that is why they are chosen. Broadcasters have this notion that they will get more appealing questions from 'ordinary' members of the public.  They don't.    They get simplicities thrown up by the press. Thus the question on Prince Andrew and the Monarchy had little to no relevance to the election.  It was simply topical.   No politician trying to be elected Prime Minister is going ...

Boris' alternative speech to the CBI: Look, I know you will understand we have to bribe voters with more spending on all the essential services about which pollsters tell us they care. So, for now (wink, wink) until we get reelected (wink), we are going to shelve the cut in business tax. Now, I know you will be disappointed, but trust me, we are the party that wants to distribute more wealth (wink) (pause) to the few. We have taken so much from the many and given it to...people like you who create wealth. Never have so few benefited from the misery of so many (lovely Churchillian ring about that, don't you think?). You know our record is sound. More families using food banks, more families are living with slashed benefits. We have cut real funding for the NHS, social care, children's services, schools. We have driven down wages. There are now more pensioners in work than ever before. Child poverty has increased. Pensioner poverty is rising once again (we are delivering j...

It is still said by many that this UK general election is about Brexit.  In many ways it is, and no doubt Brexit, remain or leave, will influence voters.  But it hardly features in the debate at a national level. So far, Boris Johnson is not attempting to make a case for his 'deal', or for a possible no-deal exit.  On the contrary, he has been busy trying to cover up the Tories appalling record in government: failure on the environment, failure on pensions, failure on social care, failing children's services, and a crisis in the NHS and in our schools. Some might argue that such matters are of less concern if the economy was doing well after a decade of austerity, but it isn't.  The Tories have failed on the economy and, if anything, are now abandoning caution to the wind in an attempt to woo voters. "Brexit haunts the election like a ghost" One thing is missing is Brexit.  It haunts the election like a ghost, but few if any are discussing the details...

Farage's deal with Boris, standing down to give the Tories a clear run in those seats they won in 2016, looks like a winning edge for Johnson, but it may backfire.  Looking across the polls there does appear to have been a shift in support for Labour. Whether it is significant and consistent remains to be seen. If campaigns do anything, then it is not surprising Labour has picked up.  The Tories have had a bad week. Johnson, far from meeting ‘real’ people and being seen out and about, has been cocooned with infants in schools or walking around aimlessly in hospital corridors – which didn’t do too well for him when confronted with patients and doctors angry about what the Tories have done to the NHS.  Corbyn, on the other hand, has had a good start. As in 2017, the more the Tory press portray him as a bogeyman, the more voters see the contrast with the man out on the stumps. He seems to have an edge with empathy, which for all his populism Boris Johnson appears to la...

It isn't difficult to see that the NHS is struggling because it has been starved of adequate funding. £22 bn of so-called 'efficiency savings' have ripped it apart. The Tories claim that funding has increased over the last decade. Of course, that is strictly true. But in real terms per capita, this is not so. The population has increased by 6%, and the proportion of older people has also increased.   In future years, the UK population is set to grow further still. The projected population surpasses 70 million in 2029 and reaches 72.9 million by 2041 – increases of 6.1% and 10.4%, respectively, from 2017 (figures from ONS). As the population increases, so will the demands on health and care services.  A negligent government misunderstands that remorseless relationship. The last Labour government pushed up spending on the NHS as a percentage of GDP following the commitment to raise the level to the average of European countries.   This saw waiting lists and times ...

So, here is a political party going to the country saying they will 'get Brexit done' after three years of failing to get anything done at all. Just three years ago they said there wasn't a 'money tree'.  Now they have miraculously found one, and are in a bidding war with Labour on spending. "Anything you can do, we can do better!" Boris doesn't understand his own Brexit deal and comes up trumps in saying that Northern Ireland has got a good one because they will remain in the single market and have free movement.  If it is so good, then why give it up for the rest of the UK? This all took place with a rambling speech in Northern Ireland that made no sense either to those listening or to Boris Johnson, who looked like a stand-up whose jokes were falling flat.  It didn't help appearances to have a glass in his hand.  Perhaps it was water, or not.  So far, the Tory campaign launch seems to have been a flop.  Rees-Mogg talked about what he wou...

The Tories failed to deliver Brexit.  They will point to others as the cause of that failure, but it was their divisions and their lack of vision that made it impossible.   Their bluster cannot hide that truth.  Two prime ministers with two failed deals. It need not have been like this.  The Tories could have reached out to the opposition benches in parliament and delivered Brexit.   Yes, it would have involved compromise,  but it would have fulfilled the pledged to respect the referendum result. No doubt the Tories will enter the general election saying they are the only party that can deliver Brexit.  Why would voters believe them? The do or die tactics of Boris Johnson have failed to deliver.   He would not and could not have his withdrawal agreement scrutinised.   Instead, he has delayed Brexit, and there is no guarantee that the result of the general election will deliver it either.   First, Mrs May tried to use Brexit ...

The EU has agreed to an extension of article 50, in principle to the 31 January.   This gives time for proper scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement and Bill.  It also provides time for a general election and/or a referendum, although a referendum would require more time. Both Labour and the Tories are uncertain about the way forward on Brexit.  While Labour is shifting from its desire for a general election, so too are many Tories.  Nor is it clear that a general election would produce a better outcome. Putting aside party politics, the best way forward for the government is to allow time for proper scrutiny of the EU withdrawal bill.   There is now a chance that it could get it passed.  But the government has held the withdrawal bill back to avoid such scrutiny. The problem for the government is that parliamentary scrutiny is expected to see the Bill amended.  It is a fundamentally flawed Bill. It is still unclear precisely how the provisi...

Environment groups have warned that Boris Johnson withdrawal agreement would be profoundly bad for the environment.  It would be easy enough to think Boris Johnson's deal is pretty much the same as Theresa May's apart from arrangements for the border with Northern Ireland.   As ever, the devil is in the detail.   This is not Mrs May's deal wrapped in tinsel.   It would be profoundly worse for environmental protection.  In the struggle to avoid a catastrophic no-deal exit, we should not take our eye off the ball. Merely adding a referendum to a profoundly lousy deal would be a dangerous strategy.    If there is to be a referendum on the current withdrawal agreement, then it will need considerable amendment as it passes through parliament.  It requires detailed scrutiny.   Theresa May's deal had binding commitments to maintain environmental standards during the transition period.   This commitment has been s...

Supporting Boris Johnson's Brexit Bill with a referendum attached is a risky option for those who believe it is a bad Bill.  Labour is right to agonise over the decision.  However, in the end, it might be the only option available. Labour has argued consistently for a customs union with the EU as the best way forward short of remaining in the EU.  The May/Johnson withdrawal agreement is a long way from that objective.  So, should Labour now allow the Bill to pass through parliament on condition of a referendum?  Or should it hold out for a renegotiation and a better deal?  Short of Labour winning a general election, the latter option looks unlikely. Would it be responsible for parliament to put what it considers to be a bad deal back to the people to decide? And if they do, would it produce a precise result.  What conditions, if any, should be attached to the vote? One reason for putting a deal back to the people is that parliament is u...

The People's Vote campaign needs to decide whether it is campaigning to Remain or for a people's vote.  The two are not the same, and the arguments sometimes conflict.  It sends a confusing message.  To get a people's vote, they will need to win support across the spectrum. Simply telling Leave voters that they have made a "mistake" isn't going to win them over.  They need convincing that a people's vote is not merely a trick to stop Brexit; it is for them also. But, listening to some Remain campaigners, a people's vote appears to be a ploy to stop Brexit.  Their argument is primarily based on the idea that voters were "tricked" or "misled" in the last election. Their argument is another way of saying Leave voters were stupid, or gullible.  When they are challenged on this point, they will say "no, of course, we are not saying that", and then it is followed by a "but" - "but the Leave campaign lied!...

There is a saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.   This can be said of the Withdrawal Agreement reached by Boris Johnson with the EU.  The devil, as ever, is in the detail, and these details raise many issues that still need to be resolved.  Rushing the complexities of those issues through Parliament on Saturday is hardly likely to give them proper scrutiny. Boris Johnson will tell MPs that it is "his" deal or no-deal.   This, of course, need not be so, but time is running out, as is the patience of the EU.  They want to get a deal so they can move on.  So also does the British public. I am sure we are all fed up with Brexit, but it is the most significant decision our country will make for generations. Accepting a deal merely because we want to 'get Brexit done' is not a good reason. We need to be sure the compromise is workable and that it is what the British people really want. The withdrawal agreement is at least a...