Brexitwatch: a new reply from Sir Keir Starmer. (Spoiler alert!) Looks just like the old one

I've had a reply from Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who happens to be my MP, to my criticisms of Labour's reply (see my post of 23 January) to my original criticisms of Labour's policy on Brexit. I attach this latest reply below, and you will see it bears an extraordinary resemblance to Labour's original reply (see my post of 17 January), which I had already demonstrated to be completely unsatisfactory. 

It is almost as though Labour has a standard pro forma response to anyone who raises anything that casts doubt on the Great God Brexit. Personally, I don't see how determinedly ignoring the Brexit disaster can win the next election for Labour, but what do I know? I'm only a voter. Anyway here's the letter: 

Dear John,

Thank you for writing to Keir to share your thoughts on Britain’s exit from the EU. He has asked me to respond on his behalf.

I am sorry that it has taken us so long to get back to you, the constituency office has received a huge amount of correspondence recently and we have had to prioritise urgent Covid-19 related casework. That said, I would like to assure you that we have still been reading and monitoring policy inquiries throughout this period and ensuing that Keir is fully briefed on the issues which are being raised by local residents. Your strong views, arguments and observations have been duly noted and shared with the relevant policy teams.

The old divides of Remain and Leave are over. At the end of December, Labour had two options: Johnson’s flawed trade deal with the EU, or the chaos of ending the transition period with no deal, which would have meant substantial tariffs and barriers to trade. Neither one was ideal. Neither one would deliver for jobs, business or the economy. 
 
We have always said that to crash out with no deal would be unthinkable. It would have created enormous uncertainty, endless negotiations and inflicted huge damage to businesses in highly exposed sectors, including manufacturing and farming.
 
With no option of renegotiating left, we voted in the national interest by rejecting no deal.
 
Voting for this deal did not mean that we welcomed it. However, compared with the alternative, this is the better option for business, supply chains, the economy and jobs. This deal will provide some stability and certainty for businesses. Without it, we would have faced no deal which would have meant investment and jobs lost across crucial sectors.

But, this is Johnson’s deal. He and his Government will own it and they must take full responsibility for their slowness and lack of preparedness – and for the promises they make and break. There was no reason that a deal this unambitious for the UK had to be left until the final days of the transition period. The decision to delay this deal has done unnecessary damage to businesses and the economy.
 
Moreover, this deal falls far short of what the Government promised. It neglects services, which account for 80 per cent of our economy, and weakens our security measures. There was very little time for Parliament to scrutinise the deal properly because of how quickly it had to be passed. So much for ‘taking back control’ – this Government is arriving at the last minute with a deal that is more ‘be grateful you’ve got anything’.
 
More holes will be exposed in the coming weeks and months which must be mended in the future. This Tory Government must now get into action and properly support British industries with adjusting to new trading rules, building up local supply chains and expanding in to new markets.
 
The biggest challenges facing our country and our planet require co-operation and international solutions, and a Labour government will work with others with shared values to tackle those.

Now that a trade deal has been agreed, the task of securing the economy, protecting the NHS, and rebuilding the country will only have just begun. A Labour government will build on the foundations of this deal, stand up against any Tory attempts to dilute workers’ rights and environmental standards, and make the United Kingdom the best place to grow up and the best place to grow old.
 
Thank you once again for your email. Please do not hesitate to get back in touch if there are any further points that you would like to raise.
    

Best wishes,
 
Annie Peterman
Research and Communications Officer
Office of Keir Starmer QC, MP
Member of Parliament for Holborn & St Pancras
Leader of the Opposition

Brexitwatch: a (sort of) reply from Sir Keir Starmer

The story so far: I wrote to Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, who is also my MP, urging Labour to oppose Boris Johnson's disastrous Brexit 'deal', because supporting it would mean Labour would be tainted with its damaging consequences and would be disqualified from complaining about them (see my posts of 6 and 27 December). As you know, Labour whipped its MPs to support the deal and the vast majority obeyed. The main excuse being that if Labour opposed it, there was a danger of 'no deal', even though the deal would have passed comfortably without Labour votes.

I have now finally received a reply - not from Sir Keir, but from 'Lee' of the Labour Party. I will be responding but I would be interested in any thoughts readers have before I do. Here it is:

Dear John,

 

Thank you for your email to Keir Starmer MP in relation to Britain’s withdrawal from the E.U. At this point in time, Keir’s mailbag is so full that he has asked me to respond on his behalf. I’m very sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

  

Your strong views, arguments and observations have been duly noted and shared with the relevant policy teams.

 

The old divides of Remain and Leave are over. We now have two options: Johnson’s flawed trade deal with the EU, or the chaos of ending the transition period with no deal, which would mean substantial tariffs and barriers to trade. Neither one is ideal. Neither one will deliver for jobs, business or the economy.

 

We have always said that to crash out with no deal would be unthinkable. It would have created enormous uncertainty, endless negotiations and inflicted huge damage to businesses in highly exposed sectors, including manufacturing and farming.

 

With no option of renegotiating left, that is why we voted in the national interest by rejecting no deal.

 

Voting for this deal does not mean we welcome it: it is a choice between this and no deal. This is the better option for business, supply chains, the economy and jobs. This deal will provide some stability and certainty for businesses. Without it, we would have had no deal which would have meant investment and jobs lost across crucial sectors.

 

But, this is Johnson’s deal. He and his Government will own it and they must take full responsibility for their slowness and lack of preparedness – and for the promises they make and break. There was no reason that a deal this unambitious for the UK had to be left until the final days of the transition period. The decision to delay this deal has already done unnecessary damage to businesses and the economy.

 

Moreover, this deal falls far short of what the Government promised. It neglects services, which account for 80 per cent of our economy, and weakens our security measures. There was very little time for Parliament to scrutinise the deal properly because of the speed it must be passed as to avoid no deal. So much for ‘taking back control’ – this Government is arriving at the last minute with a deal that is more ‘be grateful you’ve got anything’.

 

More holes will be exposed in the coming weeks and months which must be mended in the future. Labour in Opposition and government would focus on improving and building on it and standing up for the country’s interests. This Government must now get into action and properly support British industries adjusting to new trading rules, building up local supply chains and expanding in to new markets, instead of casting them to one side as they have over recent months.

 

Labour are focussed entirely on making this the best country to grow up in and the best place to grow old in. This biggest challenges facing our country and our planet require co-operation and international solutions, and a Labour government will work with others with shared values to tackle those.

 

However, with the trade deal agreed, the task of securing the economy, protecting the NHS, and rebuilding the country will only have just begun. A Labour government will build on the foundations of this deal, stand up against any Tory attempts to dilute workers’ rights and environmental standards, and make the United Kingdom the best place to grow up and the best place to grow old.

 

Best wishes,   

  

Lee 

Membership Services and Correspondence  

The Labour Party 

 

Brexitwatch: WORLD EXCLUSIVE! that historic Johnson-Macron phone call.

 'Bonjour Emmanuel, j'ai un peu de difficulte, Brexit-wise, avec les tete-bangeurs de l'ERG.'

'Very good, mon ami, but let's parler anglais. You'll find it easier.'

'Right, well, look, You know that I know as well as you know that Brexit is a merde-show, and that no-deal is even merder. But if I do a deal, those ERG-ers are going to come looking for my guts pour faire les garters.'

'Ne t'inquiete pas. I have an idea. We give them a petite saveur.'

'Of what, French cooking? I can't see how that'll work. Still, I suppose anything's worth a try. But no garlic.'

'Non! Non! A petite saveur of no-deal!'

'You mean confront them with reality! Mmmm, never thought of that, but how?'

'Well. This new variety of the Covid virus that is making you British get your culotte un peu twiste par le present. What if I were to use that as an occasion pour fermer the border. Proteger la France! Take back control, as you might say.'

'Mmmmm, yes. Lorries grind to a halt, park on every verge and pavement in Kent, village gardens turned to public toilets, impenetrable tailbacks miles long! Any Brits not driven mad by Brexit might start wondering if the ERG-ers are barmy!'

'And the opposition to a deal va disparaitre dans les airs.'

 'Vanish into thin air! Like Brexit promises the morning after the referendum. Brilliant! Why hadn't I thought of that?'

'Do you want me to answer that question'

'Er, no. Tu m'as sauvee la vie! Ferme la porte, et les ports, of course. Merci, Emmanuel.'

'Je t'en prie. Bye, bye no-deal. Hello surrender, er, pardon, world-beating agreement. Au revoir.'

Brexitwatch: write to Labour

My MP happens to be the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer. Before the last election, he gave me a promise that Labour would vote AGAINST any Brexit deal that did not satisfy Labour's '6 tests'.

On 29 June 2018 at 22:55 STARMER, Keir wrote:

Sorry for the delay, John.

Yes, all six tests must be satisfied.

Otherwise, we vote against.

Best wishes, Keir 

The 6 tests can be found here. https://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-starmer-labour-has-six-tests-for-brexit-if-theyre-not-met-we-wont-back-the-final-deal-in-parliament/

There are few certainties about Brexit, but two things we can be sure of are that any deal Boris Johnson achieves will bear no resemblance to what he promised while he was conning people into voting Leave and that it will not meet the 6 tests - especially test 2: 'Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?'

Any deal Johnson agrees will seriously damage our country. It would be an act of monumental folly by Labour to support such a deal, and would disqualify the party from protesting at any of the many damaging consequences that would flow from it.

So I have written to Keir Starmer again (see below). If you agree with me, write to Keir Starmer. If you have a Labour MP, write to them too.

Dear Sir Keir,

I hope that you and your loved ones are well. 

You may remember that before the last election, you gave me an assurance (see below) that Labour would vote against any Brexit deal that did not meet ALL the party's six tests.

I am sorry to have to ask you to repeat the promise, but I keep reading disturbing reports that Labour plans to vote in favour of Boris Johnson's Brexit deal, should he reach one. 

To put it mildly, it seems extremely unlikely that any deal he makes will satisfy the six tests, so can I have your assurance that Labour will not renege on its promise?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: 'My indecision is final.' Will Boris Johnson's dithering wreck the UK?

Boris Johnson has painted himself into a corner that allows only two unpalatable choices: accept a Brexit deal that breaks virtually every promise made by the Leave campaign or allow a catastrophic 'no deal' which could have any number of adverse effects including denying people the medicines they need to stay alive. (See my posts of Sept 27 and Oct 2).

It is a measure of how Johnson has been paralysed by this dilemma that his government has made no progress since I wrote about it two months ago, and now there is less than a month, and a month interrupted by Christmas holidays, before the transition period ends, and the UK has to face all the consequences of Brexit for the first time.

Now even the right wing Brexit fanatic newspapers are full of scare stories about how Brits who own holiday homes in Europe will be limited about how long they can spend there, how they'll face bigger bills, how insurance policies and driving licences aren't going to be valid anymore, how fishermen might 'take back control' of our waters but won't be able to sell their fish, how farmers will be bankrupted, how European freight companies will decide carrying goods to the UK is just too much hassle, etc., etc.

Of course, this has all been known about for years, but the right wing press had suppressed the stories, or derided them as 'Project Fear', hoping something would turn up. Maybe those German carmakers would finally ride to our rescue?

Johnson's inability to take tough decisions was notorious when he was Mayor of London. Now, faced with a much more crucial decision, he seems to be stuck in the Micawber position, desperately hoping that something will save him from having to choose between a rotten deal and no deal. It's the same approach he adopted with Covid - taking every decision too late. A failure for which many paid with their lives.

What price will the UK pay for his inability to take a decision over Brexit?

Brexitwatch: of cakes and decisions

 Another way of saying: 'I want to have my cake and eat it' is 'I am incapable of taking a decision'. Big political decisions usually involve making painful choices. Take Covid. The harder you lock down, the more you'll limit the spread of the virus, but the more damage you'll do to the economy.

The UK was late in imposing both of its lockdowns. Was this because Boris Johnson was incapable of taking the tough decision about how you balance economic damage against saving lives? Certainly, plenty of people complain about his indecisiveness when he was Mayor of London.

Brexit involves equally painful decisions. The more distant you want to be from the EU, the more damage you do to jobs, businesses and public services, and the greater the danger that you will break up the UK.

Johnson still seems not to have progressed from cakeism. He's still telling the dwindling band of people who believe him that we can have the benefits of EU membership without the responsibilities. The UK has tried demanding this for the last four years without success, but with perhaps just a week left to secure a deal, Johnson seems to have no fresh ideas.

Even if authoritarian nihilist Dominic Cummings has really departed, it will make the central decision no easier. What does the UK want: more distant and poorer, or closer and better off? With time running out, if Johnson continues to prevaricate, we will end up with no decision. And that will mean no deal. And that will mean we won't be able to have our cake or eat it.

Brexitwatch: Kent's Brexit bogs - is Boris Johnson planning his greatest double cross?

There's a story doing the rounds that the UK could rejoin the EU in short order under Article 49. I personally do not give it a lot of credence. Nor do I think we should arrogantly assume that other EU members would want us back after the way we've behaved over the last four years.

Still, it does make you wonder. As I've noted many times, anything you say about Boris Johnson has to be highly speculative because you can't believe a word he says. 

So why is Johnson's government building 'Farage Garages' all over the place to accommodate lorry drivers stranded by Brexit, and why is Kent being turned into a public toilet that you'll need a passport to get in and out of?

Is this just the inevitable result of a no-deal Brexit or whatever lousy bare bones deal Johnson manages to do?

Or is it to ram home to the Brexiters what a disaster leaving the EU is going to be (Kent voted 59% for Brexit in the referendum), and to soften them up for an eventual application to rejoin or at least to agree a relationship that keeps us in the Single Market and the Customs Union? After all, it's quite clear that Johnson knows perfectly well that Brexit is a thoroughly foolish idea for the UK, however much it may have advanced him personally.

I don't believe this is Johnson's game, and I wouldn't put any money on it, but he knows that if he is not to go down in history as the UK's worst ever (and possibly last) prime minister, then at some point he needs to pivot away from disaster.

Brexitwatch: why Boris Johnson may go for 'no deal'

On 27 September, I put the case for why Boris Johnson may cave in and make a deal with the EU. Today I look at why he may be forced to settle for 'no deal'.

I was watching a clip from Johnson campaigning before the 2016 Brexit referendum. In the space of about 50 seconds, he promised: 1 Brexit would be 'win-win'. 2. There would be no tariffs. 3. There would be no trade barriers. 4. The City of London would continue to have the same access it has to now to the EU.

No deal that Johnson can achieve could possibly fulfil even these promises. To say nothing of all the others that were made - that we could have our cake and eat it, we could enjoy all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities, that it would make the UK better off, provide more money for the NHS etc, etc.

So the danger of a deal for Johnson is that it will be measured against the promises he and his acolytes made. And, therefore, perhaps the safest thing is to have 'no deal' and try to put the blame on the EU.

Certainly Johnson's government has been working very hard at that. The UK is reneging on treaties and breaking international law - that's the EU's fault. The UK's doctrinaire refusal to compromise means no progress is being made - that's the EU's fault, etc, etc.

So here is one reason why Johnson may feel 'no deal' is his safest option, and there are others which I will examine in the coming days - always remembering the health warning: because you cannot believe a word Johnson says, it is very hard to predict what he will do. 

Brexitwatch: Boris Johnson - deal or no deal?

Sam Goldwyn warned: 'Never make predictions, especially about the future', and making predictions about Boris Johnson is especially hazardous because you can't believe a word he says (see my post of 5 January).

According to the crankish game theories of Johnson, or perhaps more important - Cummings, the UK will get a good deal only if the EU believes it is serious about 'walking away' from negotiations and settling for 'no deal'. (Though the consequences of no deal are now so widely recognised to be disastrous that Johnson-Cummings have had to try to rebadge it as an 'Australia-type' deal.)

There is no evidence that the EU are in the slightest degree impressed by this nonsense, but plenty that it keeps the more fanatically anti-EU element among Johnson-Cummings' supporters happy.

Nye Bevan asked: 'Why look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book?' And we have already seen Johnson-Cummings with their backs against the wall during the negotiations. They also threatened to walk away during the Withdrawal Agreement talks, but in the end they signed up to whatever the EU demanded, including things like a border in the Irish Sea that Theresa May had rejected. They and their nodding dogs then claimed this was a great victory.

Johnson-Cummings' attempt to renege on that agreement may mean that an even more humiliating climbdown will be required to get a deal on the future relationship, as the EU is probably unlikely to take much on trust from now on. But with a mendacious right-wing press still highly compliant on Brexit, if not on Covid, Johnson may still be calculating that he can repeat his earlier trick: surrender, then claim victory, while his media accomplices play along.

So, if I was forced to predict an outcome, it would be this one, though I wouldn't bet much on it. I'll be examining other possibilities over the coming weeks.

Brexitwatch: MPs - you're out of excuses. Time to resume your jobs

It is the duty of MPs to act in the interests of the UK. Many, perhaps most, regarded this duty as suspended after the Brexit referendum. Though the vast majority knew leaving the EU would damage the UK, they decided to obey the result of the referendum, even though it was explicitly advisory and non-binding, and even though it was set up and conducted in a thoroughly undemocratic way.

Readers of this blog will know I disagreed profoundly with this analysis. But if you agreed with it, the referendum result committed the government to one thing only: that we should ‘leave the EU’. That was the only thing we voted on. That duty has been discharged. We left on January 31, and MPs, therefore, no longer have any excuse for ignoring the national interest.

Any version of Brexit makes us poorer than we would have been if we had stayed in the EU, but the most damaging way to leave is ‘no deal’ – without any agreement. (No doubt worried that people were beginning to realise this, Johnson and Cummings have rebadged ‘no deal’ as an ‘Australia-style deal’. Australia has no trade deal with the EU.) 

A no-deal Brexit, according to the government’s own figures, will cost us around £30bn a year. That’s equivalent to about three-quarters of what we spend on schools. How disappointing then that our MPs have shown so little interest in the Conservative government’s dilatory non-negotiations with the EU, characterised by shouting slogans designed to appeal to the worst instincts of the most extreme Brexiters.

Come on MPs! This is not good enough. You can’t go on hiding behind the referendum result. It is your duty to your country to prevent a no-deal exit and to ensure the damage from Brexit is minimised as much as it can be.

Brexitwatch: Leave means disaster, say Leavers

The 'Leave Alliance' who 'make the case for leaving the EU' now realise Brexit's going to be a disaster. In a series of tweets, they say: 'These days I'm heavily sceptical of #Brexit and the mess it will surely be.'

They add: 'Any serious examination our #Brexit trade negotiations suggests the UK is playing silly b*ggers and was never sincere about a deal and we're just going through the motions to pretend we tried. The headbangers have won.'

I could hardly put it better myself! They point out that the government's plan to join the CPTPP Trans-Pacific partnership on the other side of the world instead of the EU 20 miles across the channel is a waste of time. (Surely even Dominic 'where's Dover?' Raab, our alleged Foreign Secretary, must have noticed the UK isn't very near the Pacific.)

As for a US trade deal, says the Leave Alliance, it'll be much worse than staying in the EU Single Market, and probably won't happen anyway.

Our customs systems 'aren't ready' for the end of transition, and no-deal will cause 'unsustainable customs and red tape overheads'. They conclude that it looks as though the Tories 'haven't the first idea what they're doing.'

You'll be relieved to know that sanity hasn't completely dawned in Brexitland. Even though we Remainers have been warning for the last four and a half years that Brexit is barmy, it is still apparently all our fault. The question now though is whether the Brexiters who have belatedly realised that Johnson is leading us to disaster have the guts to do anything about it.

Electionwatch: the latest Great Brexit Lie

The whole Brexit project was and is based on lies, and one particular lie is now central to Boris Johnson’s campaign – that electing him as prime minister will ‘get Brexit done’ and that the country will then be able to forget about it.

Why anyone would believe anything Mr Johnson says is a mystery to me, but apparently some people do, so let everyone understand that the one thing a Tory win will not do is ‘get Brexit done’.

Let’s assume Johnson gets a majority. He then presumably brings his ‘deal’ back to parliament. It passed second reading once with a majority of 30, but with Brexit, the devil is in the detail. When the UK decided to join the EU nearly half a century ago, MPs gave approval by a much bigger majority – 112, but when the detail was voted on, the margin shrank to 8 votes, so Johnson is likely to be extremely vulnerable.

If MPs decide to do their job and read the legislation properly, there will be lots of amendments and, bearing in mind his ‘deal’ is even worse than Theresa May’s, on some of them Johnson is likely to be defeated – People’s Vote, giving MPs control over negotiations? Which, is why he pulled his ‘deal’ from parliamentary scrutiny in the first place.

That is obstacle one. But let’s assume Johnson clears that and gets his deal through parliament. Brexit done and dusted? No way. Far from being the end of anything, that is just the start of a long and complex negotiation of a new trade deal with the EU.

It took Canada seven years to reach agreement with the EU. Some people will tell you the UK can do a deal much quicker, but they tend to be the same people who promised that we would be able to have our cake and eat it, that the Withdrawal Agreement would be the easiest negotiation in history, that Brexit would make us richer not poorer etc, etc.

All their promises have turned out to be worthless. And the UK’s position is fatally weakened by the Brexiters’ inability to agree on what they want: no deal, May’s deal, Johnson’s deal, soft Brexit, hard Brexit. They fooled you once. Are you really going to fall for it again?

Far from ‘getting Brexit done’, uncertainty will rule for years with Johnson landing the UK with a whole new set of nail-biting cliff edges. 31 January - if we have not agreed a deal, we will have to ask for another extension or leave without a deal. If Johnson can negotiate that obstacle, the UK goes into a transition period. By 1 July, Johnson has to decide whether he wants to extend that beyond the current end date of 31 December 2020. If he agrees, and if the EU agrees, the next cliff edge comes on 31 December 2022. At every cliff edge, a disastrous no-deal with food, medicine and fuel shortages looms.

Meanwhile, Scotland, Northern Ireland and probably Wales will be determinedly fighting Johnson’s plan to take them out of the EU against their will.

There’s as much chance of a Johnson victory ‘getting Brexit done’ as there is of me playing centre forward for England. If you want to stop Brexit dominating our politics for the foreseeable future, the only way is to stop Brexit altogether.

Brexitwatch: how the BBC should be interviewing Brexit-ers

I have just sent this complaint, which also includes helpful suggestions, to the BBC:

"It is immensely frustrating to hear Brexit apologists run rings around BBC interviewers day after day with lies, evasions and obfuscations. It is the duty of your interviewers to take a far tougher line.

So if a Brexit-er tells you that Yellowhammer is out of date, a Remainer plot, that everything is now sorted, that the government is preparing for no-deal, etc, etc, the next question should be:
‘So do you guarantee that Brexit will not cause any shortage of medicines, foods or fuel or a hard border in Ireland?’ If the Brexit-er equivocates, they need to be pressed hard: ‘So what might there be shortages of? How long could these shortages last?' etc

If they say: ‘well I can’t tell you exactly’, the next question should be: ‘shouldn’t you know exactly how serious the shortages are going to be before you inflict them on our country?’

If the Brexit-er re-iterates that no-deal is nothing to fear and that everything will be fine, the next question should be: ‘so do you guarantee that you will resign if there are shortages of medicines, food or fuel or a hard border in Ireland?’

BBC interviewing on Brexit so far has let the country down. The UK is now facing its worst crisis since World War Two. If the BBC lets us down again, its reputation will never recover."

Brexitwatch: Beware. Is 'no deal' a Boris Johnson dead cat?

Back in the autumn of 2016, when Theresa May (remember her?) was peddling her 'no deal is better than a bad deal' nonsense, here is what I blogged on 9 October 2016:

'Is Mrs May engaged in a softening up exercise, conjuring up the most disastrous picture of Brexit imaginable, so that when she comes up with something that damages the country a bit less, Remainers will be pathetically grateful and go along with it? 

Beware! Every Brexit is a bad Brexit. The only good Brexit is no Brexit.'

Now Boris Johnson is our prime minister. He once wrote that if you were losing an argument, the thing to do was to 'throw a dead cat on the table' - meaning you should come up with a suggestion so alarming that everybody was so distracted by making sure your alarming idea did not come to fruition that they forgot the real point.

With Johnson, the only thing you can count on is that you can't believe a word he says, so it is possible that he's wickedly irresponsible enough to take the UK out or the EU with no deal (and, therefore, of course no transition period either). Equally, 'no deal' may just be a dead cat designed to make us forget how disastrous any Brexit will be. 

Either way, we need to remember: Every Brexit is a bad Brexit. The only good Brexit is no Brexit.

Brexitwatch: should we be downhearted?

It looks pretty bleak, doesn't it? The great Brexit lie deliverer, Boris Johnson, is prime minister. The great Brexit lie inventor, Dominic Cummings, is his right-hand man. The cabinet is packed with incompetents like disgraced former International Development Secretary Priti Patel, and Dominic 'I'm not up to the Brexit job' Raab, and the only qualification for membership appears to be having sworn that: 'I will never question anything Boris Johnson says or does.'

But....this surely represents the last throw of the dice for the Brexit-ers. If the UK does not leave the EU on October 31 as Johnson has now repeatedly promised, then surely the Brexit game is up, and we won't be leaving at all, or at the very least, we will be having a People's Vote.

The moment of truth should have come in 2016, and would have done

probably, if Johnson hadn't chickened out of the leadership race. Well now it's here. So are we downhearted? No. 

Let's not leave the field to the gloomsters of the Brexit faction: who think Britain isn't up to the challenge of competing with other European countries and that we have to hide behind barriers, who think the contintentals are cleverer than us and will always outmanouevre us if we stay as EU members. That we have to accept being poorer and less influential in the world. Let's fight, fight and fight again to save the UK!

Brexitwatch: could Theresa May finally do the right thing?

At the very last gasp, could Theresa May finally do the right thing? The charge sheet against her is a long one. Just about every major decision she faced - red lines, triggering Article 50, telling the truth about Brexit - she got wrong. Above all, she always put the interests of the Tory Party before the interests of the country.

Now she has stepped down as Tory leader, but she is still prime minister, and, in a little-noticed development, she has said she will not resign from that position until she is convinced her successor has the confidence of parliament https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1137172/Theresa-may-resign-brexit-deal-news-conservative-leadership-contest

Could this be significant? At the moment, the overwhelmingly reactionary membership of her party seem determined to pass over the merely deluded candidates and go for the totally mad or bad - say Dominic Raab, who fancies himself as a dictator and wants to shut down parliament, or Boris Johnson. Whereas May always put party before country, we can be sure Johnson will put Johnson before either. It is hard to see any of the no-deal headbangers commanding a majority among MPs. So might May try to stay on or might she leave the UK a parting gift?

In her closing days, she did seem to discover a bit of backbone and a determination to stop a catastrophic 'no deal' departure from the EU. At the moment, she is on course to go down in history as our worst ever prime minister, but could she at the last gasp go from zero to hero by revoking Article 50 and saving her country? (My post of March 22 explains how this would work.)

Brexitwatch: a Labour pro-Brexit MP writes

Earlier this month I wrote to 14 Labour MPs who decided to support Theresa May and oppose Yvette Cooper's amendment designed to rule out a no-deal Brexit - you can find a sample of my letter in my post of 1 February.

I have had a reply from Laura Smith, the MP for Crewe and Nantwich, which I attach below my reply to her reply:

Dear Ms Smith,

So are you satisfied now Honda is moving out, along with the EMA, EBA, Flybmi, Sony, Unilever, 'Brexit will be wonderful' Dyson and dozens of others? Or do you want to see Brexit destroy more jobs and investment? Just how much damage would it require for you to decide Brexit should be stopped, or do the British people have to put up with any amount of damage so you can say you 'respected' the 'referendum result'?

You should not confuse 'respect' with 'obey'. I respected President Obama, but I did not feel bound to obey him. MPs should indeed have respected the referendum result. Immediately after it happened, you should have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into how you were going to respond to the electorate's advice. To parliament's everlasting shame, you failed to do that, which is one of the reasons we are now in this dreadful mess. Once, of course, evidence emerged of the cheating and law-breaking by the Leave side, MPs should have put on hold the Brexit process until this has been thoroughly investigated. Again, shamefully, MPs failed the country.

As I explained in my previous email, the referendum result cannot be 'implemented' or 'honoured' because the Brexit the Leave side promised cannot be delivered.

I note you are worried that the EU might refuse an extension to Article 50, so a better approach would be for the UK to revoke Article 50. Then pro-Brexit MPs like yourself could all get together in a grand committee to finally agree what exactly it is that you want. Then once you have decided, that could be put to parliament and if necessary the people, before the government approached the EU (which, of course, is what should have happened in the first place).

Labour is at present on a self-destruction course. 'I'm sorry you lost your job and that we've no money for your public services, but it was the will of the people' is not going to save you. There is no 'Brexit for jobs'.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Dear Mr Withington 

This email is sent in response to your correspondence to me on the votes that took place on the 29th January 2019. Please be assured that as the mother of two young children I always do what I feel is best for the future of Crewe and Nantwich and the country as a whole. I take no decision lightly and I spend a great amount of time considering all the different options. 

I supported the spirit of the ‘Cooper’ amendment in seeking to avoid a no deal. That is why I voted for a separate amendment, which was passed, declaring that the House of Commons does not support leaving the EU without a deal. I also voted for the Labour front-bench amendment, which also rejected a ‘no deal’ Brexit. A cursory glance at my voting record in that single evening clearly rebuffs any suggestion that I am aligned to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg on this issue. 

However, I did conclude that the ‘Cooper’ amendment would not have prevented a ‘no deal’ Brexit. 
It would have suspended the standing orders of the House of Commons to give priority to a Private Members Bill, which in turn sought to create a rather contrived and awkward series of parliamentary procedures. 
Had the amendment passed, we would have had just one day to debate and pass that Bill which would not legislate to prevent a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Instead, it would have set a new deadline by which a deal had to be achieved. 

If the government then failed to secure a deal, this would have triggered another debate on a motion, which would compel the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 process. 
The Article 50 process cannot be unilaterally extended, and the EU has indicated that it would only consider such an extension under certain circumstances. 

In a best-case scenario, we would have been no further forward. Three years after the vote to leave, we’d have been asking voters to elect MEPs whilst telling them that we respect the referendum result. 
In a worst-case scenario, we might still have come face-to-face with the cliff edge of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, either due to losing a vote in the House of Commons or due to the EU refusing to agree an extension without any clear way forward or change in circumstance. 

I believe that, had the ‘Cooper’ amendment passed, the pressure on both parties and their respective leaders not to compromise would have grown immeasurably. 
The ERG would have continued to reject any deal put forward, blaming the intransigence of the EU and advocating for a ‘managed no deal’ Brexit. On the other hand, those that wish to overturn the referendum result would have applied maximum pressure on Labour to also reject any deal. 
This brinkmanship could have led to several outcomes, but I feel that it is bad for British politics and would have been bad for the Labour Party. 

The only real way of avoiding a ‘no deal’ Brexit is to get a Parliamentary majority for a deal and I felt that this amendment would have actually made that less likely. 
At the same time, I knew that many saw it as just another attempt to frustrate or block Brexit and I don’t think that we should be blasé about the dangers posed to our society by failing to respect the referendum. I voted to remain and reform the EU during the 2016 referendum, however Crewe & Nantwich voted to Leave by a majority of more than 60% and I was elected a year later, having promised to respect the referendum result. I promised to do everything that I could to secure a Brexit that works for ordinary people and gives businesses the guarantees to move forward. 

The vast majority of people that I have spoken to since my election haven’t changed their minds at all. Some have even hardened their respective positions. For every Leave voter who regrets their decision, I have also met a Remain voter who just wants the government to get on with it. 

To reassure you, I haven’t shied away from the tough conversations. Many people have told me recently that they want to exit without a deal. I’ve explained to those people exactly why I couldn’t support that. 

We can’t allow this divisive debate to polarise any further. We need a serious effort to bring people together and this can’t be done without the Labour Party. I believe that our Brexit policy is the answer to breaking this deadlock. The only reason it hasn’t been taken into negotiations is because of the Prime Minister’s red lines. 
By calling for the backstop to be replaced with unspecified “alternative arrangements” (but not a customs union), the Conservative Party has set the Prime Minister an impossible task. The EU has already made clear that without a customs union, the backstop isn’t up for discussion. 

When this latest charade is done, the Prime Minister will have run out of road. Parliament has already rejected her deal with a backstop and it rejected a ‘no deal’ Brexit last week. 
She will then have to decide whether to join Labour in delivering a common-sense deal to protect jobs and living standards, or to allow for a general election so that the people can make that decision for themselves. 

I think it is right to leave all options on the table in these turbulent and unpredictable times. In fact, one of the amendments that I voted for would have required the government to secure time for Parliament to consider and vote on options to prevent a ‘no deal’ Brexit, including the option to legislate to hold a public vote. 
I have spent this last week meeting with colleagues to work together to ensure that this toxic debate can move forward.   

I understand that ultimately you wish to remain in the EU and will probably never understand why any MP would be working towards any Brexit. I am working hard to get a deal, avoid no deal and if that cannot be achieved all options should be on the table. 
  
Kind regards 

Laura Smith MP