The seismic shock of Brexit will change the UK’s politics
for ever
Rafael Behr
Party politics is sailing into a constitutional hurricane,
where many things will be thrown overboard – policies, MPs, leaders
@rafaelbehr
Tue 27 Nov 2018 06.00 GMT Last modified on Tue 27 Nov 2018
07.03 GMT
Lightning strikes near the Houses of Parliament, in London,
in July 2009.
‘The parties that
emerge on the other side of this storm will not be the same ones we have now.’
Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA
Parliament’s verdict on Theresa May’s Brexit deal is
struggling to match its billing as a “meaningful vote”, since no one can say
what the prime minister’s defeat would really mean. It is especially
unpredictable because the battles to come will not run along party lines. Many
MPs decided long ago that their Brexit choices transcended attachment to a red
or blue rosette. They might have party whips on their backs, but they feel
history’s eye on them more keenly.
One Labour veteran, witness to many a parliamentary
rebellion, describes loyalties in the Commons today as the most fluid since the
repeal of the corn laws 172 years ago. That tussle over tariffs brought down a
prime minister, split the Conservative party and created a new Liberal one.
Today’s Tories look more divided than Labour, but that is
because a governing party has to do Brexit, while the opposition only has to
talk about it. May has made unpopular choices that Jeremy Corbyn pretends do
not need making. Labour’s policy is to engineer a general election, win it,
then cook up an alchemist Brexit that keeps the benefits of the single market
without the obligations of EU membership. The unavailability of that
combination has been proven many times.
If Tory MPs cared only about party unity, they would rally
behind May’s deal. Their goal would be to get over the finish line without
sweating over the small print, mint the commemorative coins and change the
subject – enjoying the respite of a transition period before too many people
realised they had been diddled. But neither hardcore leavers nor remainers are
prepared to play along. Tory Brexit ultras demand a new deal, knowing there is
no time to get one. They are just flapping their arms in anticipation of a run at
the no-deal cliff edge. But if that is the way things are heading, many
pro-European Tories would take their chances on a referendum with a view to
aborting Brexit altogether.
For the hard-right Conservatives, Brexit is one stage in a
still more radical project – a hybrid of Ukippish nationalism and deregulated
market free-for-all. Tory moderates dream of rehabilitating their party’s
one-nation tradition and its social conscience. May is still in office mainly
because a leadership contest would prise that ideological schism open beyond
repair. No Tory can name a candidate to unite the party; many can think of
someone whose victory would force them to quit.
Corbyn has more job security than May, but it is built on a
devoted membership, not a loyal parliamentary cohort. Even if Labour MPs vote
en bloc against the Brexit deal it will be for divergent reasons. Some share
the leader’s ambition to provoke a dissolution of parliament. Others dread a
general election, but think it unlikely and expect party policy to switch to a
second referendum as the next best thing. A third tranche is torn between the
impulse to satisfy leave-voting constituents and hatred of May’s government.
They want Brexit done, but will avoid throwing the prime minister a lifeline
when the waters are closing over her head.
Corbyn himself does not seem naturally interested in
Britain’s EU membership. His most commonly stated preference since the
referendum has been to leave on terms that remove the UK from single market
rules on competition and industrial subsidy (a pretty hard Brexit). But he is
mindful that many of his supporters wish he would rally for remain. Corbyn’s
ideal outcome would probably be to get Brexit with none of the blame for
Brexit. So the Labour leadership has circled over May’s government like
vultures, watching a wounded creature crawl across an arid plain. There are
worse strategies. Scavenging is an effective evolutionary model, albeit not an
inspiring one.
Corbyn has reasons to avoid getting involved in the People’s
Vote campaign. It would put him in public alliance with liberal Tories and
Blairites, the kind of people with whom he does not share platforms (including
the actual Tony Blair). The opposition leader’s team also suspects the People’s
Vote movement of incubating a new party and sees no value in political
insurgencies outside Labour’s control.
That isn’t entirely paranoid. There are Labour MPs who want
a referendum but would not be too disappointed if their leader were to be seen
to obstruct one. That decision would give moderate rebels a cause to break with
the party on terms that might carry some sympathy with the membership. For
Corbyn to be exposed as unequivocally pro-Brexit would test the faith of all
but his most dedicated acolytes. The remnants of pre-2015 Labour would fall
away and the party, for better or worse, would emerge purely Corbynite.
What form that rupture takes is unclear. Volatility shakes
up old allegiances but it doesn’t remove all obstacles to the establishment of
new parties. The electoral system still punishes political startup ventures. A
craving for different leadership doesn’t conjure ideal leaders into being. And
the call of the tribe should never be underestimated. In an election, many MPs who
claim now to have floating loyalties would drift back to their original side.
Many, but not all. Much depends on how long the turbulence
lasts and how extreme it gets. England’s two main parties are sailing into a
rare constitutional hurricane and it isn’t clear whether their vessels are
sound. All manner of things will be thrown overboard – policies, MPs, leaders.
Some will jump before they are pushed. The parties that emerge on the other
side of this storm will not be the same ones we have now, even if they sail
under familiar names and colours.
• Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist
May’s Brexit deal is already doomed. Here’s how the
Christmas meltdown could play out
Matthew d'Ancona
Dark arts will be used to win support for the prime
minister’s plan. But the key question is what happens when MPs reject it
Sun 25 Nov 2018 15.00 GMT Last modified on Mon 26 Nov 2018
11.56 GMT
‘Theresa May should
have been wearing black and a mantilla.’ Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
It was a funeral masquerading as a baptism. In Brussels,
Theresa May’s Brexit deal was welcomed into the world by the UK’s 27
soon-to-be-ex-partners and the priesthood of the European commission.
Yet she should have been wearing black and a mantilla. The
deal is, as Tony Blair told the BBC’s Andrew Marr, a “dodo”. In her open letter
to the nation, the prime minister declared that the agreement “is in our national
interest – one that works for our whole country and all of our people … a deal
for a brighter future”.
But this is an ex-deal. The only reason it is sitting on its
perch is because it has been nailed there.
It is dead because it
simply cannot survive the ‘meaningful vote' in the House of Commons expected on
10 December
It is dead because – barring a truly dramatic realignment of
parliamentary opinion – it simply cannot survive the “meaningful vote” in the
House of Commons expected on 10 December.
Julian Smith, the government chief whip – who looks like a
dentist who positively enjoys giving his patients insufficient Novocaine – is
now May’s most important cabinet colleague by far. In the next fortnight he and
his team must use every conceivable inducement and threat to reach the magic
total of 320 votes: knighthoods, peerages, gongs and legislative time will be
offered to waverers. Those MPs who oppose the deal will be asked whether their
families would really enjoy reading about their sexual indiscretions in the
newspapers. Most of this nasty work will be carried out by intermediaries (even
whips need plausible deniability). But any and every tactic available to the
government will be used; this is life and death, and no time for political
squeamishness.
But I still don’t see how Smith does it. Some MPs, strapped
to the dentist’s chair, will indeed give in when he holds the drill in front of
their eyes and asks: “Is your vote safe?” But I have yet to be convinced that
he can get from around 260 (if you assume, generously, the support for the deal
of 15 Labour rebels) to 320.
What really matters, then, is not the first Commons vote,
but the second. Let us assume that the PM is defeated next month: the political
world is then plunged into an extraordinary Christmas crisis. May could, of
course, force the issue with a confidence motion – or simply resign on the spot
(unlikely, given her recent pattern of behaviour). Jeremy Hunt, the foreign
secretary, conceded to Marr that it was “not possible to rule out” the
wholesale collapse of the government.
The PM might yet, in any case, face the more parochial
challenge of a Conservative vote of confidence, threatening her position as
party leader: Jacob Rees-Mogg only has the names of 26 Tory MPs in his
elegantly tailored pocket, but that could easily increase to the necessary 48
if May’s deal was rejected by the Commons.
The EU would also have to consider its response. Jean-Claude
Juncker, the European commission president, declared that “this is the best
deal possible. This is the only deal possible.” The history of diplomacy
suggests that most such statements contain a footnote written in invisible ink:
“Unless we have to amend it a bit.” One can still imagine a few scraps being
thrown May’s way to show good faith.
But the fundamental controversies etched into the deal – the
Irish border “backstop”, the continued role of the European court of justice,
the prospect of the UK remaining indefinitely in the customs union – are not
going to be removed by Brussels in a moment of shocked epiphany. Tweaks, maybe;
core alterations, absolutely not.
Deplorably, senior government figures are actively hoping
that the markets will respond with panic to the parliamentary failure of the
deal, and, to adapt Dr Johnson, focus the minds of MPs sufficiently to deliver
a majority second time round. The precedent cited in this context is the
Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp) devised by George W Bush’s administration
in 2008 to prop up the financial system after the crash. After its initial
rejection by Congress, the US stock market fell by seven percentage points.
Congress promptly endorsed the plan.
But this is a ridiculous parallel to draw. The crash was a
clear and present danger. The Brexit deal is simply a damn-fool plan drawn up
in response to the result of a referendum involving lies, illegality and
foreign interference. The crash could not be halted by popular will:
fortunately, with Brexit there is precisely that option, in the form of a
people’s vote.
Expect the campaign for a fresh referendum to gather in
strength after the parliamentary vote. Those who have always felt that a
no-deal Brexit was the cleanest and most honest option – the oxymoronic
“managed” no-deal of Dominic Raab’s fantasies – will shift up a gear. Within
the cabinet, a new “gang of five” (Philip Hammond, Amber Rudd, David Gauke,
Greg Clark and David Lidington) are reported by the Mail on Sunday to be ready
to quit if a no-deal exit becomes a serious prospect.
Even as May shook hands with Jean-Claude Juncker, the political
village was transforming itself into a noisy constitutional souk. At every
stall, the traders offer alternative models: “Norway for now!”; “Canada ++!”;
“Switzerland!”; “Get yer article 50 extension here!” None of these
alternatives, it should be emphasised, has been seriously countenanced by the
EU. But they are already being offered to curious MPs at early-bird prices.
What unites this cacophonous marketplace is the absolute
assumption that the deal will fail in December. The 585-page agreement and its
26-page political annex are already regarded as redundant. The variables are
dizzying, the stakes vertiginous. The worst news that May has ever had to
confront is that the past two-and-a-half years were the easy bit.
• Matthew d’Ancona is a Guardian columnist
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário