Brexit regrets, but little appetite for change

A report on the attitude of voters to Brexit shows that they feel negatively about the course it has taken so far and are pessimistic about future prospects.  However, relatively few would change their vote (albeit more Leavers) and there is little appetite for a new referendum and a real sense of fatugue wth the whole debate: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/UKICE-Exploring-Bregret.pdf

What are the limits of partisan identity?

Some interesting new research on partisan identity: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/voters-brexit-and-the-limits-of-party-loyalty/

Voters who identified strongly with the Conservatives before the referendum, for example, followed the party in becoming more Eurosceptic as the party tacked in that direction. And voters who joined the Conservative Party just after the referendum brought their other views in line with the positions of the party: they soon became more hostile to economic redistribution, for example.

Partisan identities still matter, even in countries, like the United Kingdom, marked by increased electoral volatility and the ongoing decline of traditional political loyalties.

All of this suggests that voters are still influenced by major policy debates. On high salience issues, party loyalty has real limits. Voters seem to care about at least some policies.

Long Brexit in the Chiltern Hills

The Chesham & Amersham by-election result has produced considerable speculation about the crumbling of the 'blue wall' in southern England.   Here Paula Surridge reflects about the effects of 'long Brexit' that cross pressures electors in their voting choices: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-tale-of-two-by-elections/

Cabinet split over Australian trade deal

A battle royal is in progress in Cabinet on whether Britain should agree a tariff free trade deal with Australia.  Brexiteers think that if a trade deal cannot be concluded with Australia no deals will be possible for the new 'Global Britain'.

However, farmers - already reeling from the phasing out of support payments - are concerned that it could hit their markets and be a precedent for future deals, particularly those with the US and New Zealand.

On one side of the argument is international trade secretary Liz Truss, a popular figure among Conservative activists.   On the other side is Defra secretary of state George Eustice, backed up by Michael Gove.   Gove is concerned that rural areas in Wales and Scotland would be hard hit, further undermining the union.   Reports are suggesting that Boris Johnson may come down in favour of the deal.

Beef and sheep meat would be the main commodities affected, although Australia is also interested in exporting more cheese.   There is a 20 per cent tariff on beef at present which would be phased out over 15 years.   

How farmers voted on Brexit

A lot of myths have grown up about how farmers voted in the referendum on leaving the EU.  Based on a self-selected Farmers Weekly survey, or simply on anecdotal evidence about posters on countryside hoardings, a view has developed that farmers voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.

Up to now we have lacked any hard evidence, but that has been rectified by a survey of farmers reported in the Journal of Rural Studies by Daniel May and his colleagues.

The headline finding is that farmer voting was not greatly out of line with the electorate as a whole.  50 per cent reported voting leave, 45 per cent remain and 5 per cent did not vote.  This implies a higher turnout than the population as a whole, although some who did not vote claim that they did in surveys.

There was a slight tendency for women farmers to be more likely to vote remain.  However, the strongest predictor of voting behaviour was level of education.  60 per cent of those with GCSE or equivalent voted to leave compared with 20 per cent of those with postgraduate education (admittedly a small N).

Dairy farmers voted leave by 58 per cent to 38 per cent and pig and poultry farmers had a 53 per cent to  34 per cent leave lead.  Pig and poultry farmers received relatively little from the CAP and dairy farmers may have seen themselves as tightly regulated by it.

There were some regional differences.   Farmers in Scotland deviated from the trend there with 67 per cent voting leave (51 per cent in Wales).  Farmers in the east and south of the country were more likely to vote remain, but in part this reflected national voting trends.

The 'bring back control' theme seems to have resonated with farmers in terms of their personal perceptions.   Farmers who state that they face too many restrictions imposed by the EU including those on agrochemicals were more likely to vote leave.   For some EU regulations were seen as preventing them making higher profits or having more market power.   Voting for Brexit is perceived as delivering more control over their businesses.

A burnt oven ready deal is the meal at the table

I watched quite a lot of the Brexit debate today.  In the latter part backbenchers either seemed to want to celebrate their contribution to bringing about Brexit or say how awful it was.  In fact I switched off after Dame Cheryl Gillan's contribution as in terms of both content and delivery she seemed to be auditioning for a role as a minor royal in the next series of the Crown.  I did catch Caroline Lucas and then the closing speeches.

I suppose if there was a take home message for me it is that, as Hilary Benn said, the agenda now shifts to determining our relationship with the EU which I suspect will be in a state of constant flux and renegotiation like that of Switzerland.

Boris Johnson managed to get away with his usual range of invalid points.  He made a comparison with the time the Uruguay Round negotiations took, but those involved most of the world.  We would be free of state aid rules which is not how I understood the agreement given that the UK will have to set up a new state aid review body.    We could make our own regulatory rules.   But supposing, say, we approved a pesticide banned in the EU.  Crops produced with it could then face tariffs or even a complete ban.   He mentioned again that the EU original transition offer on fishing had been 14 years, but that soon reduced to eight which is why 5.5 years was halfway between Britain's three and the EU's eight.

He called for an end to rancour and recrimination, but that overlooks the way in which social media makes everything binary.   His best point was at the end when he referred to the UK as a half hearted, sometimes obstructive member of the EU.  We have, indeed, been an awkward partner.   However, T Singh Daesi made one of a number of effective interventions when he referred to a 'burnt oven ready deal'.

Keir Starmer was caught between a rock and a hard place and indeed one Opposition Whip has resigned. He just about managed to hold on to his argument that a thin deal is better than a no deal and that voting against was a self-indulgent luxury given that there would be a vote in favour.   His speech as a whole made some good points on details, such as the fact that there would be non-tariff barriers to trade, but was not very impressive in big picture terms.   Indeed, he often looked grim faced, flustered and exasperated, particularly when the honourable member for Carmarthen (independent) kept interrupting him.   His vision was of an 'outward looking, optimistic and rules-based country.'

Ian Blackford managed to pontificate for 25 minutes in his usual self-satisfied and pompous manner.  At one time he seemed to be yearning for the Auld Alliance.  He did, however, argue with some force that Scotland would lose a 'precious part of what we are' by leaving the EU. He did manage to score a few points against Michael Gove  on fisheries.   Having invoked the spirit of Winnie Ewing as Madame Ecosse, he predicted that the empty seat at the top table at Europe would not remain empty for long.  It is, of course, a possible scenario.

Theresa May's stock is very low these days but I thought she made an effective short speech.   She pointed out to those voting against that there was a better deal on the table in 2019.   She was disappointed by a deal on goods which had little or nothing to say on services which account for 80 per cent of the economy. [Of course, many of these are not traded, but financial services are].  Services would have to be negotiated on a member state basis, those for the Czech Republic, for example, requiring a residence requirement.  She also referred to something called the Partnership Council which I admit that I know nothing about and must investigate further.  [Apparently it is the body that settles trade disputes between the UK and the EU, but much will depend on how this works in practice as with the WTO disputes settlement mechanism].  She warned that sovereignty does not mean isolationism or exceptionalism.  We live in an interconnected world.

Ian Duncan-Smith insisted that he was not anti-European and loved Europe (just as Ian Blackford said that he loved England and the English).   What this means, of course, is that he and others have no objection to enjoying French cuisine, but don't want to work alongside France in a systematic rather than ad hoc fashion.

Caroline Lucas admitted that she and others had voted against a softer form of Brexit, but referred once again to the need for a confirmatory referendum.   I was never as confident as the hard core remainers that a second referendum would have delivered a different result.  I never liked the idea of a second vote to get the right answer and would have probably abstained.  The Brexiteers have had the better strategies and tactics, if only in terms of unrelenting pursuit of their objective.

Michael Gove declared in conclusion that 'We have kept faith with the people.'   He then proceeded to make a number of partisan points against Starmer and the SNP.

Both the second and third readings passed by 521 votes to 73.   My MP, Matt Western, was going to vote in favour which I think was the right decision.

Brexit: I want my life back

I must admit that I have not yet looked at the 1,260 page legal text of the agreement between the UK and the European Union or even the summary document.   Boris may says its an extra Christmas present, but it is one I could live without for now.

For four-and-a-half years I have been answering media queries on Brexit.  I agreed to be media point man for our Comms Office over the festive period and was hoist with my own petard.

For example, on Christmas Eve I had to deal with an enquiry from a national newspaper about alleged attempts by President Macron to rule Europe.  At 8 pm I had to go live on France24, although fortunately not to deal with any suspicions that Macron is a shape shifting lizard.   At 5.30 am on Christmas Day, my phone rang again.

So I am quite looking forward to getting my life back.  If I was a MP or a member of the upper house, I would vote in favour of the deal on the grounds that a thin deal is better than no deal at all.  (BTW, congratulations to my former student Vernon Coaker on his peerage, but it does need reforming).

I did vote for remain and I actually campaigned in the north of England.  Invited to be the warm up act for Ken Clarke by Skipton's MP, I encountered an audience full of UKIP supporters.   The first question asked was why was I a waffler?  (Less so than some academics).  The second was how much the EU paid me.  (Nothing).

When Ken came on, a man walked on to the platform, pointed his finger at Ken and said 'You are a traitor to the country, Mr Clarke.'   Needless to say, Ken was not in the least bothered and gave a lively speech with some good jokes.

Having seen the EU close up sitting on a technical committee and as a research leader, as well as organising a MPA class in Brussels for many years, I have a lot of concerns with its decision-making processes.  Reforming them is a monumental effort.  If reform was possible, we wouldn't have had a dysfunctional and expensive Common Agricultural Policy for so long.

Nevertheless, I am sceptical about the possibilities of a new special relationship for the UK.   The idea of the UK sitting at the heart of three overlapping circles of the US, Europe and the Commonwealth doesn't wash any more.  I persuaded Andrew Gamble to write an essay for Political Quarterly on Brexit and the 'Anglosphere': https://politicalquarterly.blog/2020/12/15/after-brexit-the-anglosphere/

For me it's goodbye to the EU not au revoir.  We could only be readmitted on tough terms.   However, I see that a petition on a referendum to rejoin has started.

What I would find much more of a blow is the end of the union with Scotland which is a real risk.  As someone of Scottish descent in the direct male line and a graduate of a Scottish university, I would feel I was losing part of my identity.   More significantly, an England without Scotland could well be a less pleasant place.

As Anand Menon points out, we could be in for a very interesting debate about deregulation versus an interventionist state: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-deal-is-done-but-what-happens-now/?fbclid=IwAR233hWOYZ7dgLCE0MB6uc5HXmDOIeCtgDMqlHjSGnSx1oHHS-4QlIZpB0g

Will the Lords block the internal market bill?

Will the House of Lords block the Government's controversial Internal Market Bill?   Meg Russell of UCL's Constitution Unit is the leading expert on the upper house and gives an authoritative view here: https://constitution-unit.com/2020/09/13/will-the-lords-block-the-uk-internal-market-bill/ 

From what I hear, some on the right are getting ready to portray the Lords as an undemocratic body standing in the way of the will of the people.  

An effective demolition job, but not beyond criticism

The full version of Donald Sassoon's lacerating review of David Cameron's memoirs is now about to read free of charge online. It is a remarkable polemic: The worst prime minister ever

I am reluctant to criticise a fellow editor of Political Quarterly and he has produced a devastating and eloquent critique. I just make three simple points:

• There clearly isn't a lot of point in comparing Cameron with 18th or 19th century prime ministers who were operating in a very different environment. But if we just confine ourselves to the 75-year period since the end of the Second World War, there is surely a case for Sir Anthony Eden who deceived the House of Commons about going to war. More recently, Theresa May has been criticised on a number of fronts.
• Dave Cameron certainly had his flaws, and his memoirs are self-justificatory and tedious - but that could be said of many political memoirs. I do think he had an inability to think many moves ahead on the chess board of politics (as was evident from my one engagement with him), but that's never easy.
• Much of the view you take of Dave depends on whether you are a hard core remainer. I voted remain and even campaigned for it in front of hostile audiences (I can recall being the warm up act for Ken Clarke). However, I have seen enough of the EU from close up to have some reservations about it, in particular about the strength of the 'reform from within' argument. I still think it was the wrong decision to leave, particularly with what looks like a very hard Brexit, but I don't think a referendum could or should have been avoided for ever (albeit that Dave was too confident about winning it).

Anyway, do read what Sassoon has to say.

Let us move on?

I am great Dido fan and I particularly like the track 'Let Us Move on': Lyrics video. It it is apposite to Brexit: 'Let us move on … and it will pass.' She is, of course, referring to a love affair, although the relationship of some people to the EU does seem rather emotional, whereas for others (and for successive UK governments) it is more transactional. Even so, I have not found it that easy to move on.

I voted remain and I campaigned for remain, the high point or low point being when I was the warm up act for Ken Clarke in front of a partially hostile audience in Skipton. The first question I got was 'Why are you a waffler?' and the second was 'How much does the EU pay you?' As Dido says, 'we've done all we can.'

Nevertheless, I do have some reservations about the EU having seen it close up for the whole span of our membership. I don't think that EU decision-making is necessarily undemocratic, indeed I think that the European Parliament is a more effective institution than some national legislatures. I do think that the decision-making process is overly complex. Perhaps that is unavoidable when you have 27 member states, but it does give a lot of scope for corporate business interests to exercise considerable influence.

As for the 'reform from within' argument, I would find this more convincing if a dysfunctional Common Agricultural Policy did not still absorb not far short of 40 per cent of the EU budget.

Even so, I am not sure that I can 'let all that is lost be forgotten.' The economic benefits of membership are in my view considerable. Free trade pacts with countries like Australia carry hazards as well as opportunities: Dom's deal. There are also strong security arguments for membership, although there may be other ways of pursuing these as in President Macron's proposal for a European Security Council.

'Don't fly it like a kite (Dido)'

What does concern me is that the Government is evidently intending to have a no deal Brexit because that is what an 'Australian solution' amounts to. Of course, this is a negotiating ploy and what the Government would really like is a basic Canada style agreement covering trade in goods (but not financial services). That might be possible, although there isn't much time and the issues of state aid and the emotive subject of fisheries are major stumbling blocks. A no deal exit would be economically damaging, although politically the blame could be put on the EU (again).

I might add that my view is that there was a window of opportunity for a softer Brexit, but hard core remainers persisted in their demand for a second referendum. It always puzzled me that they were so confident that they would win it on the basis that people would be 'better informed', although some might have felt that what they learnt was how obdurate the EU could be. Some leavers might have voted remain, but some remainers might have voted leave. The result would have probably been close.

My hope would be that the EU and the UK realise that a working relationship is in both their interests, although the UK has more to lose than the EU. I am not too hopeful.

Impeachment a non-starter

I don't think the call by Westminster's Plaid Cymru leader Liz Saville Roberts to impeach Boris Johnson is going to go anywhere: Impeachment

Impeachment is when a peer or commoner is accused of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours, beyond the reach of the law or which no other authority in the state will prosecute.’ It is a procedure that is ‘directed in particular against Ministers of the Crown’. This arcane procedure has not been used since the 19th century and has never been used against a prime minister.

A House of Commons Library briefing paper on the subject can be found here: Impeachment

The Government says that it thinks it has a way of by-passing the Brexit extension law, but won't say what its cunning plan is. I suspect this means that it doesn't exist other than as more bluster.

Brexit damage to social fabric

I was quite surprised when someone questioned on Facebook the fact that I have Brexiteer friends. I couldn't be friends with someone who is a neo-Fascist, racist, homophobic or a misogynist, but in general I wouldn't let politics stand in the way of friendship. One can agree to disagree on such matters, just as one can on religion. I am even friendly with someone who supports Crystal Palace!

I respect that people legitimately hold different views from mine. If we lose that from our society and politics, we are losing something essential to the maintenance of the social fabric and a democratic political system.

In some ways I find the views of hard core remainers more challenging than those of leavers. Some (not all) of them border on the arrogant in the certainty that they are right. Their case often claims to be more evidence based, while for many leavers it is more emotional which is one way of making a political judgment.

Having studied the EU for over forty years, and seen it from the inside as a leader of a EU research project and a UK representative on an EU committee, my problem with its decision-making is not that is a bureaucratic dictatorship, as some claim, but that decision-making is too cumbersome, slow and complex. Perhaps that is unavoidable when one is dealing with 27 member states and three major institutions, not to mention many minor ones. There is still a technocratic flavour to the whole project, despite the often underrated influence of the European Parliament in the trilogue.

Given the time that it has taken to make some reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy which still absorbs far too much of the budget and is dysfunctional from an environmental point of view, I am rather sceptical of 'reform from within' narratives. Big business has far too much influence on outcomes. However, I do think that a more fragmented Europe would be less successful at counter balancing Russia and exerting influence in the world generally.

The deteriorating fabric of UK politics

With the 13th candidate announcing for the Conservative Party leadership, we now have a baker's dozen wanting the poisoned chalice and eager to join the growing list of Tory leaders brought down by the European question. It's even possible that some candidates will only get their own vote as their nominators may not vote for them. One would think that credible candidates should be required to produce more than two signatures.

Of course, it's a bit like candidates who say they are running for US president but really hope they might be selected as a candidate foe vice-president. Some of them are hoping to get Cabinet posts in returning for pledging their supporters at a later stage (who won't necessarily vote as recommended anyway).

While this comic opera continues, a solution to Brexit is as far away as ever. Indeed, it may no longer be possible to compromise on a soft Brexit that wins grudging acceptance from both sides of the argument. The hard core remainers continue to call for a second referendum, although I don't see this as a viable option if it ever was, while Brexiteers want a no deal exit regardless of the resultant damage which they would see as scaremongering or at worst short term. The EU will not budge on the negotiated settlement, although there is room for manoeuvre on the political declaration.

One possible scenario is a no confidence vote in a new Conservative PM followed by a general election which would probably produce another hung Parliament. One shouldn't get carried away by current poll results as a general election is at least a few months away and getting a quarter of the vote doesn't necessarily get you very far under a first past the post system as other insurgent parties have found in the past.

The threat of a successful bid for Scottish independence has increased. If disentangling a relationship that has lasted for short of 50 years has proved difficult, dismantling one that has lasted over 300 years will be even more challenging, particularly if an independent Scotland was admitted to the EU.

The polarisation in British politics and society may now be hard to overcome and that is not a very happy situation, to say the least. Of course, it's not just about Brexit, but a wider clash between different value systems involving, for example, 'nowheres' and 'somewheres', or between those who are social conservatives/economic interventionists and the more liberally inclined.

If I was younger, I would be thinking about leaving with possible destinations being the western seaboard of the United States (where I have lived and worked), British Columbia (where I nearly went) or Western Australia. As it is, I am stuck with the likelihood of a British version of American culture wars.

The politics of no deal

An important reminder that there is no clear Parliamentary route to blocking a no deal Brexit: Institute for Government

However, politically it would be difficult for a Brexiteer prime minister to go ahead with no deal. I think a general election this year is now more than likely.

How long can a Parliament last:?

My views on the length of the current Parliamentary session: The Long Parliament

Unfortunately, I was unable to sneak in anything about a topic that always mystifies me: the status and the role of the cap of maintenance.

'Costcutter' election leaflet is disingenuous

The Conservatives are running their EU election campaign on the cheap, given that many of their activists and MPs disapprove of the elections being held and may not even vote for their own party.

I don't find the Conservative leaflet which arrived this morning much more impressive than one offering me a special deal on baked beans. If, as is stated, 'The only party which can get Brexit done is the Conservative Party' why are they talking to Labour? Moreover, many Conservatives think that the backstop in the deal is a trap and what is on offer is BRINO (Brexit in Name Only). Indeed, they argue that it is worse than current arrangements because the UK would have to accept EU rules without having a say in shaping them.

I think Brexiteers would be better off accepting the current offer now and challenging it later if needs be. At least the process would have started.

It is stated that Nigel Farage is 'standing for personal gain'. I am no fan of Nigel Farage, but I do accept that he genuinely believes that the EU is a bad thing and Britain would be better off out of it.

It is stated that if Labour top the poll it would take Jeremy Corbyn 'closer to the Downing Street'. I doubt it; in any case, I expect the Brexit Party to top the poll. Turnout will be around the normal level of 35 per cent, most likely (admittedly tricky to forecast). In some ways the Peterborough by-election will be more significant as it looks as if there will be one 'People's Vote' candidate'.

The Government intends to introduce the withdrawal bill, but I can't see it getting very far, even if an amendment is passed to remove the backstop which the EU would not accept.

My nightmare scenario would be this. May is finally forced out in June. A hard line Brexiteer is elected as Conservative leader (it could be Bozza, but Raab is gaining traction). The new PM goes to Brussels and demands a renegotiation of the agreement. The EU falls about laughing. PM returns to Britain and signals a no deal Brexit. The Government is defeated in a vote of no confidence. A general election is held and another hung Parliament is returned. Deadlock.

All we can do is pray

Cometh the hour, cometh the man?

It seems to me that what Theresa May is now trying is a de facto National Government and I don't think it will work because it would split both parties and is not in Jezza's interest.

The fate of peacetime national governments in the UK is not a happy one. In the 1918 'coupon' election Lloyd George was able to continue at a head of a de facto national government which soon became mired in scandal. Eventually the Conservatives staged the Carlton Club revolt which resulted in the formation of the 1922 committee and the Welsh wizard went into the political wilderness. BTW, I would recommend Ffion Hague's biography which draws heavily on Welsh language sources.

In 1931 the formation of the National Government split the Labour Party and left them out of office in their own right until 1945.

If the Conservatives and Labour did agree a deal, they would need enough votes to get it through the Commons which would not be easy. I don't think it's in Jezza's interests to bail out the Conservatives. Also, Labour is understandably concerned about May being succeeded by a hard line Brexiteer, although they would fancy their chances against Bozza who has been out voting in non-existent elections.

One thing that has struck me in the last week is how upset many lifelong members of the Labour Party about the party's current situation. As someone who is barred from party membership of any kind, it is difficult for me to appreciate just how they feel. However, many of them worked for the Labour Party all their adult lives (or earlier) and it is a central part of their identity.

Personally, I am getting exasperated by both the hard line Brexiteers and the hard core remainers. The divisions in Parliament actually reflect divisions in the country which are felt in personal relationships. We also have many urgent public policy issues that are being neglected given the bandwidth taken up by Brexit.

The European Parliament elections are very likely to go ahead and I would expect the Brexit Party to come in first. Although I appreciate that the Lib Dems were burnt by their experience with the Social Democrats, the three remain parties have shot themselves in the foot by not having a coordinated strategy, admittedly not easy under the d'Hondt system. The Change UK (or whatever they are called this week) launch was a farce. If you are a new party you need to know what you brand and message is and Farage does.

We are in May, the month of Mary, Queen of Peace. When I go to mass this morning, I expect to be offered the opportunity to pray for Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, but I have little hope of any prayers being answered.

Why MPs should go on holiday

The decision to start the Easter recess has attracted some criticism, but prolonging the session would not lead to a Brexit solution in the short run. If that can come from anywhere, it will be from the talks between the Government and the Opposition, although it is a very slim hope given the distance between them and the risk of splitting their own parties.

MPs are not going to make good decisions when they are exhausted and have been operating in an emotionally supercharged atmosphere. They need time to reflect. They will also not be 'on holiday' but engaging with their constituents, although that could be a rather fraught process. The recess has also been truncated with MPs returning the day after Easter Monday.

Britain Beyond Brexit

The introduction to this forthcoming book can be read free online here: Britain Beyond Brexit

Difficult issues surrounding a second referendum

Alan Renwick and Meg Russell take a long, cool look at some of the difficult issues that surround a second referendum: Key questions

They reckon that it would take at least 22 weeks to hold a referendum which would require an Article 50 extension. There are tricky issues in relation to next May's European Parliament elections.

Probably the most difficult issue is how a referendum question should be structured. They state, 'There is no perfect system that would allow all voters to express their preferences and guarantees an unambiguous result.'