Conservative leadership contest

Conservatives leadership challenge

Theresa May has finally stepped down as party leader. The race to succeed her as Prime Minister is on. The aim of this is to summarise the relevant candidates and to track progress in the campaigns.

The timetable of events is short, May’s last day as leader of the party was 7th June, although she intends, for now at least, to stay in post as Prime Minister until the election is resolved by 22nd July should it go that far. Theresa May was appointed without a party membership vote.

The election process is multi-stage, the first group of stages being votes by MPs with recent amendments specifying a minimum number of votes at each stage. At least one will drop out in any round until the final stage, a vote among party members.

A challenge for any potential successor will be to coordinate another timetable, that for Brexit. The current state of play is that Article 50, the mechanism for leaving the EU, has been extended until 31st October. Unless there is an alternative to the failed Withdrawal Agreement, the legal default position is to leave without a deal.

Parliamentary arithmetic and chronology makes life interesting and can be changed to a degree. Following the announcement of a new Prime Minister, assuming that this does take place on July 14th, there would ordinarily be just 3 days and a Monday evening before the summer recess.

We normally expect a short session in September, two weeks of sitting until rising again for the party conference season. Parliament returns to action in the second week in October, leaving a just over three weeks to pass outstanding Brexit legislation.

There is an alternative scenario which may depend on the outcome of the EU elections. The House of Commons can have a vote of no confidence which could lead to a general election. This would depend on two circumstances. The first is a vote of no confidence being passed. The second is and a majority of two thirds of the House agree to an election.

It goes without saying that current public opinion might mean that the current opposition may not wish to call a vote of no confidence. Alternatively, if 200 or so MPs feel that their seat is under threat, abstention.

There are several considerations for Tory MPs in selecting a new leader. Perhaps the most obvious is the candidate’s position on Brexit. Since there has been so much division within Conservative ranks. This part of the argument will take a high profile in the public part of the debate at least.

We can also expect to be told that performance records of the candidates, combined with experience, are also major features. Who will be most capable of uniting the part?

The less public side, at least during the MP voting rounds, will be perhaps less palatable to the public. Some candidates may privately hint at future ministerial posts, enhancing earnings prospects when leaving parliament. Bizarre alliances may be made to prevent progress of certain candidates. We can expect to hear in abundance about unity.

In the last party leader election, it will be remembered that Andrea Leadsom withdrew. At the first opportunity, she was promoted by May onto a Cabinet position. May, whose final Cabinet included 16 Oxbridge graduates out of 26 attendees, was herself given a ministerial job by David Cameron, also an Oxford graduate.

So who are the candidates? They are listed in alphabetical order of surname below:

Michael Gove

The first of many Oxford graduates, Gove will be remembered as the education Secretary at the time of tuition fee increases. Lauded by some of his supporters as a “radical”, his reforms were described by experts as “neo Victorian”.

Gove of course stood in the last leadership campaign, having promises to endorse Boris Johnson’s candidacy before announcing his own merely three hours before the deadline for nominations. In this he was supported by Tory defector, Nick Boles and alternative leadership candidate, Dominic Raab.

MPs will point to his ability to savage sitting targets, recently in reply to a motion of no confidence, In earlier life he had done the same to a future monarch to who he will be expected to promise allegiance; Prince Charles.

A staunch advocate of May’s Withdrawal Agreement, despite any support in parliament, he will surely be considered an electoral liability, the negative image enhanced by revelations of his cocaine snorting history.

Matt Hancock

Oxford and Cambridge graduate Hancock has much in common with the outgoing leader, having had a short career with the Bank of England before slipping into the Conservative Party machinery. He is also transparent as a Remain supporter.

It might be seen as a benefit that he has kept a relatively low profile, currently as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in July 2018. Of his eight ministerial appointments so far, his longest serving was almost 18 months as Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

There seems to be little to suggest that he would last any longer as Prime Minister.

Mark Harper

Oxford graduate Harper has a background as an accountant before entering politics. Having held three ministerial positions during the five years of coalition government, he went on to become Chief Whip.

He has been associated with a variety of controversial policies, including the lorry poster campaign targeting immigrants, resigning when his cleaner was found not to have permission to work in the UK.

He may lay claim to having reduced delays in benefit assessment for disabled claimants, although his constituency office was found not to have disabled access.

Jeremy Hunt

Oxford graduate Hunt is perhaps the archetypal establishment candidate, coming from a military family and a distant relative of both the Queen and Oswald Mosely. He may be best remembered for his long term role as Secretary of State for Health, handing over responsibility for funding allocations to NHS England under the guidance of Tony Blair’s Special Adviser.

Hunt is another who campaigned for Remain and appears to be welded to the three times rejected Withdrawal Agreement..

His attention to detail may be in question, having apparently misinterpreted rules over his agent’s living costs, as well as claiming living expenses at one home whilst also claiming mortgage payments at another. He has also had to apologise for being in breach of money laundering rules and failure to properly register interests.

He may be a popular candidate with other MPs though few would describe him as a potential general election winner. His drugs confession was to cannabis lassis

Sajid Javid

Exeter graduate Javid is current Home Secretary having had a number of ministerial posts. Shackled by `collective responsibility’ he has been associated with support for May’s Withdrawal Agreement which may lose him appeal among the pro-Brexit wing of the party.

Much will be made of his ability to broaden the appeal of the party as he would become the first non Caucasian Prime Minister, therefore potentially perceived to add credence to Conservatives as the party of opportunity for all.

It may seem spurious to highlight that Britain has not elected a bald Prime Minister since Atlee in 1950 as candidates suck as Kinnock, Foot and Hague will testify.

Having been reported to have started his campaign early, it remains to be seen how he will be judged for ambition over principle.

Boris Johnson

Another Oxford graduate, Johnson starts the race as the bookmakers’ favourite, apparently a Brexiteer based on his resignation as Foreign Secretary after May’s Chequers “agreement” amongst Cabinet members in July 2018. He might be argued to have spoiled those credentials when voting for the third presentation of the Withdrawal Agreement.

In his favour is his electability, having been Mayor of London. A charismatic character, enhanced by a cosmopolitan family history, there is breadth in his appeal. He can also point to his establishment past, having studied at Eton and Oxford.

On the other hand, he can be seen as divisive in the party, Amber Rudd having brutally attacked him in the referendum debate although purporting to support him now. Rory Stewart has openly said he would not work under Boris.

Should Boris get through the MP votes, there is little doubt that he has huge appeal among party members. However, there must be big doubts about whether he will make it that far.

Andrea Leadsom

Leadsom graduated from Warwick, one of only three non-Oxford scholars in the race. She has been here before, having withdrawn before the final hurdle to allow Theresa May a clear run. Since then, she has held two ministerial positions before resigning from the cabinet over her leader’s attempts to push through a withdrawal agreement.

During the referendum campaign, Leadsom was a high profile Leave campaigner. Her resignation was ultimately the key to kick starting the current leadership contest, one for the reasons being that the arrangement she had voted for no fewer than three times would not lead to a “truly sovereign United Kingdom”.

It is clear that Leadsom does not enjoy the same levels of support among MPs as she did in 2016,

Despite being renowned for her pizza club meetings. It therefore seems unlikely that she will progress very far. Her own drugs confession was restricted to smoking cannabis at university.

Esther McVey

McVey is the third non-Oxford graduate, as well as being the second female to stand as a candidate. If elected, she would be the first Conservative Prime Minister to represent a constituency in the North of England since Arthur Balfour in 1905.

Her credentials as a Brexiteer rank relatively highly among the candidates, having made her opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement abundantly clear in her cabinet resignation letter.

As an electoral asset, McVey must be amongst the strongest candidates in the leadership race, if voters can forget her association with the toxic Universal Credit. However, she must be considered as unlikely to make the final round given the lack of depth of support among MPs.

Dominic Raab

Back to the Oxford graduates, Raab gained a law degree before a career in practice. Whilst some will point to his willingness to jump into the shoes of David Davis following the infamous Chequers Agreement, Raab’s Brexit credentials remain among the strongest of the candidates.

A prolific writer on policy matters, even his opponents would describe him as radical, coherent and consistent, albeit as one considered to be on the right wing of the party.

Twice smeared with what have been seen to be unfounded claims, Raab has maintained his composure with a dignified resilience.

Outside the front runners, Raab may be considered as one for the future to chart a new Conservative approach. His biggest hurdle is to survive the MP rounds of voting which seems unlikely given the depth of support for alternative candidates.

Rory Stewart

Eton and Oxford educated, Stewart reeks of privilege. Among his clams to fame are being locked in Prince Charles’ toilet at Highgrove. Speculation had linked him, through his previous diplomatic career, with intelligence circles, a real life Johnny English perhaps? Stewart has certainly learned how to be anonymous.

When in Afghanistan, he met his wife Shoshana, then married to a professor volunteer for his charity. Shoshana was made Managing Director. Despite apparently sharing the same morals as Boris, Stewart has stated he would not be prepared to serve in a government led by his scholastic predecessor.

His voting on Brexit has been totally loyal to Theresa May, latterly adopting the idea of a citizens’ assembly from Gordon Brown.

Rory will probably be best remembered for opening the drugs debate, having confessed to smoking opium at an Iranian wedding. His most significant contribution to parliamentary debate might be argued to be his ministerial response to the proposal of the hedgehog as our national animal.


If the media are to be believed, we can expect to see a bloody contest, characterised by chicanery. Key to ultimate success is overcoming the internal network of MPs before party members have their say between the last two standing. The criterion of electability may not feature highly until then.

It remains to be seen how much Gove’s revelations will affect the outcome. He does not appear to have leached parliamentary support although the fact that his own drug abuse was Class A, linked to the world’s most violent supply chains, may have more impact on the public.

The Conservative Party has a history of resolving issues behind the scenes with a general election being a distinct possibility should the factions not be able to convince the public of unity behind whatever outcome is achieved.

It would be unwise to bet against a repetition of the process within a year, however, an Oxford educated male appears to be a racing certainty.

Brexit – breaking the impasse

Brexit – breaking the impasse

The original deadline for Brexit, 29th March 2019, is less than 4 days away. Debate continues, resolution seems so far away. What can be done to ensure an “orderly withdrawal”?

The key is in the provisions of Article 50, the mechanism for leaving the EU. A critical word is “agreement”. By definition, agreement includes at least two parties to a transactional arrangement.

Paragraph 1 of Article 50 states that “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” In the case of the UK, the constitutional requirement is approval in parliament. At the same time, “It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”.

In the event of both parties being unable to come to a mutual agreement, paragraph 3 applies:

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

The time period expires on Friday, 29th March 2019, albeit that provisional unanimity to extend was apparently given last week. The provision is that parliament will agree this week or present an alternative approach.

Parliament has been clear that there are some unacceptable parts of the so-called Withdrawal Agreement. Most pertinently, is what has become known as the `back stop’. The House of Commons refuses to accept the backstop, the EU refuses to remove it. Therefore, there is no agreement between the two parties. The default position is therefore to leave on Friday.

The Withdrawal Agreement can be seen from different perspectives. In public at least, there has been little opposition in the UK to a “divorce settlement” of £39 billion. Article 50 does not include any formal arrangement over payments. A break can be clean with no liabilities on either side. The £39 billion can be seen as a generous offer.

Other provisions on the Withdrawal Agreement include other generous provisions. The UK could reclaim fishing waters from 11 pm on Friday. A transitional situation has been proposed.

It is hard to find any similar concessions from representatives of the EU.

Through a series of votes, parliament has indicated that “no deal” is an unacceptable option, even though that is the default position. There appears to be an impasse.

With four days remaining, there are other options. Article 50 notice can be revoked, surely a message of revolt from parliament that the will of British people will be ignored. There are still 4 days left to find a compromise.

Ultimately, any treaty has to be agreed by a qualified majority the people of the EU according to their own constitution al requirements. The British government can therefore be expected to respectfully put a case to the people of the EU.

What should that message include?

On 23rd June 2016, the UK gave a message. We are part of the European family with shared histories, sometimes amicable, sometimes not. As with all families, we make pursue different directions, Children leave home to discover the world and gain independence. We simply chose a path that does not follow the ideal of “ever closer union”.

Given our past, we also have close ties with others around the world, not least a voluntary, liberal liaison with countries in the Commonwealth. We seek to develop our own relationships on a different basis with other friends. Moving in with a new partner does not mean that we ever want to ignore our close family.

We enjoy home cooking, we want to be able to enjoy the same treats that we have for decades, if not centuries. We are happy to provide a market for EU cheese and wines. We are also happy to provide markets for other goods. We buy Skodas from the Czech Republic, Peugots that were once made in the UK, now from Slovakia, BMWs from Germany, VW from all parts of the EU.

Our trade gives Germany alone a €50 billion trading surplus. We have been generous in offering managed access to British fishing waters over a transitional period. We have had no intention of devastating EU fishing ports in the same way that ours have been since the 1970s. Sadly, those allegedly negotiating on your behalf do not share the same spirit of compromise.

Any job losses, in cars, wine, cheese and many other areas are down to both parties who can not reach an agreement, predominantly those who will not compromise on anything. We can buy what we want from other friends around the world.

After nearly 3 years, enough is enough. EU negotiators and leaders have shown no appetite to avoid “no deal”. So be it.

Here is a final offer to the people of the EU.

We do not wish to be protectionist to either the EU or our global friends. After Friday, we can agree to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with our other friends. Your leaders don’t want to be a part of that free trade network.

However, agreement to progress to an FTA can keep doors open. Article XXIV of the WTO suggests that if we all agree to work towards that end, we can trade on the same basis as currently. The EU car industry is going through a difficult time, not least down to corporate interests in falsifying information about vehicle emissions.

We do not wish to impose tariffs on EU goods but are left in a position where we have to. Lack of reciprocity of protectionist measures leaves us with no bargaining power. We want to keep your incomes and wealth growing. Please bear in mind that we also have our social responsibility to other partners. We wish to help markets develop in other countries and aid through trade.

We are still prepared to be generous. There is no obligation under Article 50 to pay you anything. As a nation, we are considerate. We are happy to keep paying into EU funds during the current budgeting period. That ends in December 2020. However, the British people decided that we wish to support environmentally friendly and sustainable agriculture, divert resources where we choose and not be subject to the vagaries of EU bureaucrats.

Britain is more than happy to give you the opportunity to adjust. Please let your leaders know that you want that period of adjustment too. Let’s agree to push for future FTAs. If your leaders do, then relationships will be maintained. If your leaders wish to cut off their noses to spite their faces, you have your ways of removing them – or actually you don’t. That is why we have chosen to leave.

Whatever happens, our people have close bonds. We may not be living in the same house but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to share a beer or two over football or when our interests coincide. We want to spend time with you on holidays and you are welcome to visit us. Just let’s have the freedom to grow.

Brexit tariff reduction

News has broken that in the event of “No Deal”, up to 90 % of tariffs will be removed. Confirmation seems to have come from a refusal to deny from Greg Clark, Business Secretary.

Naturally, views have been expressed, from all political vantage points. The opposition can be expected to oppose. Some in government have expressed reservations.

The announcement seems to have been leaked to Sky News. Greg Clark was later quizzed on Radio 4, indicating that formal notification will be made depending on the results of votes in parliament next week.

Perhaps the decision should have been made known in parliament first. May’s government has already been deemed to be in contempt. However, the substance, if and when all is revealed, is far more important.

In short, Sky  News were apparently told that “only the 10-20% of the most sensitive items would retain their protection, including cars, beef, lamb, dairy and some lines of textiles”. The devil will prove to be in the detail.

The motive, apparently, is to prevent shop prices increasing, therefore anti-inflationary. There may be more to it.

Perspectives always create debate. An obvious position is that such a move leaves the UK “nothing to negotiate with”. There is a wider context.

Tariffs are currently decided at EU level. The recent imposition of tariffs on rice from Cambodia and Myanmar is a case in point. Market share for Italian grown rice has halved as consumers in Italy have moved to cheaper options.

From a UK perspective, all this does is to increase rice prices for British consumers. The impact on British farmers is negligible if any. The same can be said for thousands of commodities, bananas, wine, oranges and lemons, in fact the majority of fruit and veg items that appear on supermarket shelves.

The benefit comes to consumers with the removal of taxes on healthy produce. Instead of having to pay high EU prices for oranges, these can be sourced from other countries at a lower price; South Africa, USA, Brazil. Whilst increase in choice provides consumer benefit, there may even be a positive effect on the nation’s health.

The larger benefit goes to those who spend a higher proportion of their income on food, specifically the lower paid. Wading through economic theory and reminded of Keynes’ Circular Flow model, there is a knock on effect to the wider economy, income being made available to spend elsewhere. The lower paid are less likely to save so the benefit is multiplied.

Whether or not there is likely to be a detrimental effect on farmers depends on two main factors. Will British produce still be protected? As has been referred to, beef, lamb, dairy and other products from overseas would appear to retain tariffs.

The other critical factor is how the government reorganises payments to farmers. If tariffs are to be removed in some areas, then by implication, the UK will not have to follow the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Payments can be made to protect land, husbandry and the environment rather than to manipulate markets. Of course, this may mean that farmers have to reassess how they look at costs and incomes. If incentives are land management based and sufficient, then output costs depend on marginal rather than average revenues.

This would not be new. Historically under CAP, farmers have often made losses on crops, the subsidy being higher than the loss. The onus is on DEFRA to process the figures with the government to make the right decisions.

Several parliamentary select committees have heard that productivity growth has been hampered by protectionism. USDA figures show British agricultural productivity from 2001-12 averaged 0.8% annual growth as compared to the developed country average of 2%. There is still ground to be made up.

Of course, there will also be losers. French, Italian and Spanish wine makers can expect to lose market share in Britain as tariffs are removed from USA, Australia, South Africa and South America.

Similarly, the Republic of Ireland will be subject to those tariffs on beef and dairy products. Their major export markets for beef, Irish Cheddar and Irish butter will see their products more expensive in the UK. However, this may provide other opportunities for UK farmers.

So what about manufacturing?

Some answers may be provided by further select committee hearings, notably involving the economist, Patrick Minford. For those who are unaware, Minford is maligned by many but has some outstanding credentials. He was one of a group of economists associated with the Thatcher government of the 1980s.

Much of his work related to the breakdown of the trade off between inflation and unemployment, referred to as the Phillips Curve. The late 1970s to early 1980s saw both increasing inflation and unemployment.

Minford is also known as a ‘supply side’ economist. Here is an attempt to summarise that particular school of thought.

A market is essentially where buyers and sellers meet. Demand from buyers is determined by a variety of factors, notably price, price of other goods, incomes and tastes. Supply is based on profit, in turn the difference between revenues from consumers and costs of inputs. For some goods, environmental factors, technological progress and government intervention also apply.

In general terms, the higher the price, the less will be demanded, conversely, the more suppliers are prepared to supply. Economists love their graphs. We are used to seeing the following:

In a normal market, if the price is set too high, what is supplied will not be sold. If the price is too low, the supplier will see that goods sell too quickly. The market will find its balance or equilibrium, on our graph at a price of p1 and output of q1.

If Minford is right and world prices for commodities are lower (without tariffs) than EU prices, British suppliers will be able to make more profit at any given price. This has the effect of shifting supply, diagrammatically, to the right:

We can see that our market produces more, resulting in a lower price, or at least with no inflationary pressure.

The same basic principle applies to a whole economy. If we can reduce costs by increasing productivity, whether that is in pure costs, technological progress or by any other means, we can experience economic growth without unnecessary increases in price. For Price, in a whole economy we can think of the Retail Price Index (RPI). For Quantity we can think of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In a nutshell, the essence of supply side policies in a free market leads to lower prices, higher output and incomes and potentially higher employment to meet that increased output. If Britain is capable of more supply, we will attract inward investment.

In the shorter term, the Business Secretary seems to have suggested selective removal of tariffs. Among those is the car industry, although it is suggested that car components will be tariff free.

According to the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, the EU accounts for 85% of UK car imports, roughly 69% of cars on British roads. However, the supply chain is heavily integrated. The cost of producing cars in the UK will therefore remain the same if components are imported from the EU, potentially reduced if sourced elsewhere.

If EU finished cars are to become more expensive, then there are opportunities for those manufacturers staying in the UK to target that 69%, for example Jaguar to replace BMW and Mercedes fleets, the Astra or Corolla to replace the Focus or Golf.

In the longer term, technologies are changing. Diesel and ultimately petrol are forecast to be in decline. Any tariffs that are collected can be redirected into infrastructure investment in electric vehicle technologies as illustrated by representatives of Nissan, with a view to FTAs in the future, thus competing on a world stage.

Should the extensive removal of tariffs be welcome or a threat?

Much depends on perspective. If on goods which are not produced in the UK, then there is an opportunity to improve quality of life, reduce costs and simulate growth for the future. If the objective is to maintain existing ties with the EU, then there may be some concerns.

On balance, the threat to one of the top export markets for EU output might just be enough to prompt the EU to make realistic concessions on the flawed Withdrawal Agreement.

Brexit – where next?

Brexit – where next?

Theresa May has seen the biggest government defeat in British history. Her Withdrawal Agreement has been kicked into touch. The grieve amendment means that she has to bring Plan B back to parliament next week. Where do we go from here?

It is worth reflecting for a moment how we got here. May took office after David Cameron resigned, the 2016 EU Referendum result not going the way he wished. The subsequent leadership election managed a couple of rounds before the anticipated final run off. Andrea Leadsom withdrew, leaving May clear to take on the premiership, Leadsom earning herself a cabinet position.

The referendum campaign had been a cross party issue. Of the highlights, was a TV debate, featuring Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom sharing a platform with Gisela Stuart. Against them were Nicola Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle.

Within 9 months of her anointing, May invoked Article 50, the mechanism for withdrawing from the EU. A month or so later, she called a general election, apparently leading in the opinion polls by some margin. The result was that she lost her overall majority.

From becoming leader to invoking Article 50, it might be argued that May made her first crucial mistake. Having been a cross party issue, May neglected, whether actively or passively, to draw on the cross-party nature of the Brexit campaign and vote.

The 2017 general election saw both major parties pledging to honour the referendum. The result was that over 80% of the electorate supported Conservative and Labour parties. Again, May failed to seize the opportunity to seek cross-party involvement, making Brexit, to a large extent at least, a party issue. This was with a divided party.

At the same time, under the fixed Term Parliament Act, May denied the population of the opportunity to voice an opinion in the scheduled 2020 election. With a 552:13 vote to call the election, opposition parties were complicit in derailing what should have become the natural course of events.

It might be argued that May made a second fatal mistake. Negotiations began with the EU, agreeing to a timetable for progress. The problem was that the chronology was that which was presented by the EU. A “divorce bill” was achieved in principle, a “backstop” agreed. It was decided to seek a withdrawal agreement, a “future relationship” deal to follow. The initiative was handed to the EU. The UK can make no free trade agreements without the consent of the EU.

The third arguable fatal flaw came at Chequers in July 2018. It emerged, confirmed in subsequent select committee reports, that May had been working to her own agenda, with the help of her `consiglieri’ Olly Robbins. The Chequers plan formed the basis of what led to what May called “my deal”, the withdrawal Agreement presented to parliament in December 2018, then suspended and finally rejected on 15th January 2019.

In between presentations, when the Withdrawal Agreement was clearly going to be rejected, May had sought a final compromise from EU personnel. Ambiguous assurances were offered. The EU were not prepared to make any alteration to legal text.

It will be recalled that May’s first DexEU minister resigned after Chequers, his resignation letter here. Davied Davies made clear his objection to some of the key points. Subsequently, he clarified during BBC Question time in December 2018 that he had simultaneously been discussing a Canada +++ style deal with his EU counterparts.

It is now a matter of record that May’s Withdrawal Agreement has resulted in the biggest ever government defeat in the House of Commons. The most mentioned reason as mentioned in speeches was the backstop, remaining in the customs union until an unspecified date in the future, aligned with EU rules but with no say. This would be accompanied by a divorce bill of £39 billion, budget contributions growing over time.

So where from here? There are several options.

Subject to parliamentary procedure, the default position would seem to be an exit on 29th March 2019 under what one side calls “no deal”, the other “WTO rules”. Ostensibly, there is little support in the House of Commons to allow this and it remains to be seen whether MPs can nullify this option. Indeed, having been presented with the offer to discuss a way ahead with Jeremy Corbyn, the latter has ruled out the “no deal” option.

Interestingly, May’s language over the withdrawal date, by 14th January, had already moved the firm commitment “we are leaving on 29th March 2019” to “that is what we are working for”.

That brings us to a first possibility, that the Article 50 time period could be extended, which is provided for. The request would have to be agreed unanimously the remaining EU 27, by no means a foregone conclusion. Whilst having initial appeal, it could also be argued that if an acceptable alternative has not been agreed after almost two years, then would any extension merely result in more procrastination?

At a time when Germany’s industrial production indicates that they might be leading the EU into technical recession, this might be the time for the UK to exert a position of relative strength.

An apparently popular position in the House of Commons is to lobby for a second referendum, the so called People’s Vote. This would of course be in direct contravention of the positions taken in both major parties’ manifestos in 2017.

Remainers have a variety of arguments. The demographic profile of the electorate has changed. It is a fair point but goes against the promise that the first referendum was a “once in a lifetime decision”. It might be true that people did not know what they were voting for, despite the wealth of both information and propaganda made available from both sides.

It might also be true to highlight that the economic projections from `Project Fear’ have proved false, the prospect of a European Army is not, as Nick Clegg said, a “dangerous fantasy”. Did Remainer voters understand the Five Presidents’ Report, let alone anticipate Guy Verhofstadt’s passion for yet further integration and tax rate harmonisation? Did we expect the EU to take selective approaches to Italy’s and France’s budget deficits?

In compiling Project Fear, the closed circle of establishment economists made their own “ceteris paribus” assumptions, deciding among themselves which of the ceteris were to remain paribus.

Polls and anecdotal evidence provide no surety that any referendum outcome would be different next time around. A plethora of evidence suggests that a proportion of those who voted to remain value the democratic process and would switch allegiance. In any event, informed sources suggest that logistically a “Peoples’ Vote” could not take place until June, subject to the unanimous approval of a delay by the EU27.

So politicians and the media would have us believe that the EU position is now non-negotiable. Despite protestations for a second vote and an extension of Article 50, these might not be feasible, given the perceived default positions. Withdrawal of Article 50 is a threat to democratic rule and civil obedience.

Is there another way?

There may be two.

Being positive, the House of Commons has indicated what is unacceptable. Brexit, given current parameters, is defined as taking place on 29th March 2019. Preparations have already been made, at least to some extent, for a Canada +++ deal in the longer term. The EU sugest no further negotiation.

May has an opportunity to be a leader. She can present two options. Both depend on highlighting the natural outcome of trading on WTO rules after March. These might involve reciprocal tariffs. The impact on a Germany approaching recession, could be enormous if BMW were to be bought from South Africa, Mercedes from Brazil and VW from India. The impact on Mediterranean agriculture could be enormous for food and agriculture, noting for example the opportunity to remove tariffs on South African or American orange juice.

Option 1 becomes eliminating a withdrawal period and moving straight onto a Canada +++ from 30th March. Since parts of the Withdrawal agreement have been drawn from other EU accession treaties such as with Ukraine, the same exercise can be completed, if indeed a draft has not already been constructed, over the coming month or two.

Option 2 gives more time. A commitment by both parties to reach a Free Trade Agreement gives a different option under WTO rules, specifically Article XXIV. This would allow for continuation of trade on current terms with breathing space to finalise a Canada +++ agreement with a “reasonable period, defined under Article XXIV as up to 10 years. This also allows the UK to negotiate other FTAs.

If neither of those options is agreed then the default position becomes live. The UK withdraws, publishes a reciprocal tariff schedule and despite our efforts to support stability in the EU economies, German cars, EU wine, agricultural output, Polish shoes and so much more besides is immediately subject to those tariffs and global competition with immediate effect.

Either of those options is fair, made in good faith and gives the EU27 an opportunity to mitigate the potential damage caused by refusals to compromise with previous efforts. The welfare of citizens of the EU 27 is up to them. Their surpluses in the balance of trade is in their hands.

We shall make a success of our opportunity to work in a global environment.

Two weeks to agree divorce bill? A reply to Barnier.

Michel Barnier has given Britain a fortnight to offer a divorce settlement if talks are to progress to trade. What should our reply be? We have some suggestions.

Theresa May has made some very generous offers. EU countries will not be out of pocket during a transition period. Reciprocal rights will be maintained for EU citizens living here and British citizens living in the EU.

Yes, there are some sticking points in negotiations. Britain seeks to maintain an agreement between two sovereign states, to allow movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We propose a virtual border, the EU seeks to force the republic to renege.

As far as we can see, the EU seeks a gigantic divorce settlement. There seems to be no audited justification for such a bill. There does not even seem to be a counter proposal on the table.

The British are known for fair play. When negotiating to join the EU, several concessions were made, not least in access to British fishing grounds yielding something in the order of 60% of current EU fishing rights. We have made a more than fair offer.

Of course, we wish our neighbours to thrive. On the whole, British history is characterised by an outward looking nature towards trade, combined with innovation, both of which have led to long term prosperity.

The British people have decided not to dilute our own sovereignty to return to greater self-determination. Once again we seek to compete and collaborate in global markets. We seek to regain and deepen links with old allies, in the English speaking world, in the Commonwealth and beyond.

Our starting point is that no deal is better than a bad deal for Britain. The EU seems to wish to slow down the process of departing from the EU. Article 50 decrees that the leaving process should be complete within two years. We shall honour that.

Yes, there are complications but in some cases, there do not need to be. We operate systems in the EU that should allow for free trade between constituents’ markets. We have a parallel system for goods from outside the EU but with tariffs and regulations that are adhered to.

In principle, there need be no significant problems in switching from one system to the other. Quite simply, if there is no agreement, we revert to WTO rules. You can place tariffs on us, we can place tariffs on you. No deal means no transition, trade barriers start on day 1.

No deal is certainly better than a bad deal. We have to prepare for the future. Let us consider the practicalities.

No deal means that we leave in March 2019. Article 50 provides no basis for a divorce bill. In the same way, should we have been a net recipient of finds rather than a net contributor, we would be due no recompense. The EU may wish to consider that if a precedent is set, then any further countries wishing to leave the EU, if net recipients, should be due a windfall payment for leaving. Is that what you intend?

Of course, we have to plan for tariffs on our exports to the EU. We also have to plan for tariffs on EU goods. We also have to plan for trade deals with other allies.

We shall see a rise in some prices. French and Italian wine will become more expensive. We look forward to being able to trade more freely elsewhere, expecting a corresponding fall in wine prices from the Americas and parts of the Commonwealth.

Yes, olive oil will become more expensive. However, rapeseed oil is already an excellent and healthy British product. Our farmers will be incentivised to produce more. Roquefort will become more expensive but we look forward to experiencing cheaper Ewe Blue from the USA as well as developing our own excellent products, as we have with Somerset Brie. Who knows, perhaps innovative British farmers are already preparing our own Trewe Blue?

It will be a shame that motor vehicles made in the EU will become 9% more expensive. We recognise that over 80% of new car registrations in the UK come from the remaining EU27. We recognise that those who manufacture in Britain will therefore have a price advantage in domestic markets and are sure that Jaguar, Nissan, Toyota and Honda will recognise the investment opportunity.

We also recognise that when in a position to reach trade deals across the world, Mercedes will be available from Brazil, BMWs from South Africa and VWs from India.

At this point we should stress that from March 2019, fish caught in British waters must be landed on British territory. We may sell licenses to EU fishermen but look forward to further developing fish processing in the UK.

We know that you will consider the position on financial services and that by taking the “no deal” option, passporting is a weapon that you might wish to hold against us. You in turn may wish to consider that EU based companies have several thousand more passports in the UK.

London is a global financial centre with a well developed infrastructure that will take years to replicate in the EU. We wonder how that will impact on the strength of the Euro, given the inevitable job losses around Europe, and the already precarious position of the Southern EU members. It would be a shame if the EU chose to deny its citizens access to global investment markets.

By making the decision for “no deal” now, we give the EU the opportunity to plan your budgets. Our net contribution will cease in March 2019. Whilst Article 50 does not make provision for a divorce settlement, we recognise that you will retain ownership of the EU estate in Brusseles, Strasburg and elsewhere.

On making the generous offers that we have, we have strived to support the EU economy. Your decision to keep the handbrake on negotiations gives us little choice but to decide on a course of action that provides an element of certainty to investors in Britain.

The EU have chosen to risk jobs across the EU, your agriculture sectors will have more price competition from the rest of the world, your car sales will decrease through being less competitive, fishing ports from Spain, France the Netherlands and up to Denmark will lose out.

By giving ourselves some certainty, we appreciate that a decision for “no deal” now gives EU27 states the opportunity to plan for loss of trade and growth in welfare budgets.

As a country we look forward to regaining our role in the world. We look forward to tackling our €50billion trade deficit with Germany. We look forward to reducing poverty in developing countries as we trade more with them. We look forward to becoming more competitive in our corporate tax structure.

We have listened to what you have said. The ball is now in your court. The clock is ticking. You have time to change your position so that we could move ahead on a different basis.

Shall we say a fortnight, Mr Barnier?


General election 2017 – winners and losers

Following a campaign that has been both turbulent and tranquil, the day is finally over. The voters can have had their say.

This was an election that didn’t have to happen. The Fixed Term Parliament Act provided for a date in 2020, a year that could have provided perfect retrospective vision.

Following the Brexit referendum last year, itself within a year of the previous general election, Theresa May could have had a clear run, with a majority to see her through the Brexit deal and towards her chosen retirement date. 2020 could have been an opportunity for the electorate to tell a government that it approves of the deal, or ask a new government to renegotiate.

This was a campaign in which the Prime Minister shunned the limelight, just as she had during the Brexit referendum. Not for her the high profile debate, more an immersion in door knocking and refusals, a more personalised and possibly perceived sort of rejection. Hiding away would surely not turn the polls sufficiently for this to be a close run thing – or would it?

So what have we learned about Theresa May? Certainly, the manifesto was full of vagueness, only to be fleshed out with details of the “dementia tax”. Instantly, the swing of votes from pensioners was palpable. All she had to fall back on was her “strong and stable” mantra.

Other events overtook. The first election terrorist attack took place in Manchester, the second on London Bridge and Borough. One of her reactions was to deploy the army around focal points of government.

Whatever the intention, these responses highlighted a perception of self-preservation. Perhaps more importantly, police cuts under the Home Secretary prior to Amber Rudd were sharply thrust into the arena. Even the cuts to armed forces by May’s right hand man when he was at the Ministry of Defence were brought to our attention.

As support has leached from the Conservatives, where has it gone?

In fact, the Conservatives achieved their highest share of the vote since 1992. It was more a case of vote distribution. May might have been wiser to wait until boundary changes had taken effect before a vanity election.

That something dramatic could happen became apparent with reports of a high turnout, despite inclement weather. Could it have been anything to do with millions of younger people receiving their statements of student debt over the last few weeks?

Those younger voters, hit by the £9,000 p.a. tuition fees number over 2 million, an average of around 4,000 per English constituency. Most Conservative losses came in urban constituencies with higher concentrations of young workers.

The biggest beneficiary has been Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn who is surrounded by Labour MPs, most of who have called him unelectable, either directly or indirectly. One wonders if he could form a government from his own party, even if Labour candidates had won a majority of seats.

Despite a manifesto that doesn’t add up, despite a history of liaising with terrorists, despite a Shadow Home Secretary who missed such open targets left behind at the Home Office, before stepping back on grounds of “ill health”, Corbyn’s disjointed team have closed the gap.

Instead of wealthy pensioners, frightened away by the dementia tax in blue, it seems that they could have drifted to the garden tax in red. If Theresa May is the deep blue sea, what does that make Corbyn? It is the sort of choice that confronted the USA, Clinton versus Trump where the underdog came out on top.

Corbyn’s messages on tuition fees and affordable housing are most likely to have resonated with the young.

Are there any other choices?

The second biggest party in opposition was the SNP. For their part, the Scottish voters have rejected independence. North of the border, they have their own battles. They also gained the 5th highest number of votes in 2015.

This time around, Scotland, coincidentally without tuition fees afforded an irony. Following their own complaints after the previous two general elections, Scotland has imposed a Conservative government on the rest of the county.

The fourth party in parliament, the Liberals, gained almost a million more votes than the SNP last time but 40 fewer seats.  This time around, the polls show them with a slightly increased votes, perhaps surprisingly since they are arguably the most pro-EU party, 48 % of the electorate having voted to remain in 2015.

In practice, the Liberal share of the vote decreased marginally, from 7.9% to 7.4%. Perversely, this led to a 50% increase in the number of seats. The biggest casualty was Nick Clegg who, in forming a coalition in 2010, reneged on his pledge over tuition fees.

That brings us to the party that achieved the 3rd highest share of the vote in 2015 but without winning any seats, UKIP.

Of the manifestos, this is arguably the most impressive, every plan being priced. The unfortunate part is that the costings come at the very end, after some incoherent messages from some of the MEPs. Even more incoherent are the off piste ramblings of the party so-called leader, a potential executioner and water boarder. At least he has removed the cap that featured in his Stoke by election campaign, presumably so that he can be recognised on CCTV.

As for the other UKIP MEPs standing, it must be a shock not to be elected off a list, hence the desire to fly in the face of another referendum, that of proportional representation.

It can not be beyond doubt that May made miscalculations. She might have believed the polls, she might have had bad advice. She looks anything but strong and stable. It is an unwise leader who does not expect her own record to be exposed during a campaign with extensive media scrutiny.

That leaves us with what is reported as a minority government.

In practice, May has perversely benefited from increased support for Sinn Féin, up from 4 to 7 seats. Officially needing 326 seats to command a majority in the House of Commons, Sinn Féin’s refusal to take the oath of allegiance reduces this, where the DUP abstain, the Conservative government has an edge.

The alliance with the DUP effectively gives May a working majority, on most everyday business, of 14. Critically, by not obtaining the landslide that had been originally envisaged, the DUP hold a balance of power. It will not be lost on anybody that the pernicious attack on pensioners is against DUP manifesto commitments. May cannot force the dementia tax through.

On balance, the result provides for little major change. Brexit will be scrutinised but the two main parties are committed to support the will of the people expressed last June, at least in some form.

Democracy is the winner. We now have an opposition that has a mandate to oppose. The young have gained a voice. The old are protected by the DUP. We do not have an overpowering majority that would allow excess. The government should be stable, the electorate are strong.

Oompah oompah …. Juncker

As Theresa May has finally triggered Article 50, Juncker and other key EU personnel have made their thoughts known. Are they worth listening to?

He is quoted in various media outlets as saying: “Britain’s example will make everyone realise that it’s not worth leaving … On the contrary, the remaining member states will fall in love with each other again and renew their vows with the European Union…. Half memberships and cherry-picking aren’t possible. In Europe you eat what’s on the table or you don’t sit at the table.”

His remarks are widely interpreted as intending to punish Britain for daring to leave.

On the other hand, one of his fellow EU presidents, Donald Tusk started off by taking a different approach, saying: “Therefore we must to do everything we can to make the process of divorce the least painful for the EU”. He has since apparently retrenched into the Juncker bunker.

To add fuel to the fire, one of the EU’s chief negotiators, Michel Barnier is also reported as suggesting “complete uncertainty about their rights and their future, the reintroduction of binding customs controls on trade from day one of the UK’s withdrawal, which will inevitably slow down trade and lead to queues of trucks at Dover, serious disruption to air traffic”. He has also suggested that negotiations on substance will not start until Britain meets a “divorce bill” of around £50billion.

Juncker may for a moment wish to remove his blinkers. There has been a lot of falling out in the EU already. Greece has already fallen foul of austerity measures as a result of a system that favours the industrial North as compared to the Mediterranean fringes.

Elections, both in the Netherlands and France have already highlighted a groundswell of unrest among European peoples.

It should not be forgotten what the European Union really is. It is a collection of 27 member states with a nominal parliament. The parliament can not actually put forward legislative programmes. It is the unelected EU Commission that does.

Some states have benefitted, notably Germany whose manufacturing output is effectively underpriced by being part of a euro currency zone comprised of underperforming nations. Estimates suggest that German goods are 15% cheaper in international markets than they would be had Germany not aligned itself in system of stagnant and uncompetitive economies.

Juncker may suffer from disillusionment that the rest of the EU, suffering through austerity, will fall back in love with the supranational body that has caused individual nations’ citizens to suffer considerably.

When it comes to diet, we can sit at our own table. Nowhere else in Europe seems to have a penchant such a hearty start to the day as a full British breakfast. Our table might just be better stocked.

As for Barnier, what he seems to be suggesting is of questionable legality and certainly not in keeping with the EU international treaty obligations agreed in Lisbon, specifically Article 8 which reads:

“The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation”.

Is Barnier really suggesting that the EU can not be trusted to keep its own word? Can the EU be trusted in any other international negotiations such as CETA and TTIP?

It is also worth reflecting on the “worst case scenario”, that of falling back on WTO rules. This is a phrase which can be used with different emphasis. In practice, Theresa May has suggested that no deal is better than a bad deal for Britain. It is the “worst case scenario” in international law, not the worst case in the worst of all possible worlds.

For the EU, firstly, to place artificial border controls might be interpreted as a possible breach of those WTO rules. Secondly, this would reveal the true nature of the EU as a protectionist, inward looking and totalitarian regime.

There is a third element too. In order to cause queues at Dover, then the nations who host cross channel arrivals, specifically France and Belgium, would have to be complicit in those breaches of international law. If speaking figuratively, then the same applies to other countries with sea ports such as Spain and the Netherlands. Each individual country would have to authorise illegal acts in international law.

As for the airport threat, this covers every country in the EU. With competition in international markets for inward investment, any artificial barriers to trade will hardly be encouraging to those companies who seek as a basic minimum the rule of law as a criterion for investment. Add to that the £50billion or so that British tourists spend in the EU. Who will go on a holiday where planes might not even land?

Barnier seems to implicitly accept that by putting up such artificial barriers, stating the authority of the EU is akin to accepting that Rotterdam may be a sacrificial lamb. Britain’s exports, 56% are outside the EU, might no longer be routed via the Netherlands.

If the EU wants to start a trade war, then so be it. The EU can demonstrate to the world what an unreliable partner it can be. EU citizens, all of who live in democracies, can express their own discontent when British people decide to drink wine from Australia or the American continent in preference to French, Spanish or Italian varieties.

This brings us back to other political considerations. Theresa May has already hinted that it has been Frau Merkel who has delayed discussion on reciprocal residential rights. There are further suggestions that it is Frau Merkel who has been holding out for the “divorce settlement”. Remember that she is the leader of a country that persistently fails to meet its financial obligations to treaty commitments such as NATO.

On the settlement, there are still several issues to be discussed. We do not know how the £50billion figure was arrived at. As a top three contributor to EU funds over the years, the UK has been a significant investor.

Yes, there may be a claim for pension entitlements but let us not forget that the contracts for the likes of Lords Mandelson, Kinnock and Hill have been contracted to the EU, not to the UK. The EU might just be highlighting their own irresponsibility in not funding pension obligations.

There may also be scope for counter claims, notably returns on our input into the European Investment Bank where the clue is in the word Investment. The initial input should be refunded plus any return. If there is no return, then the EU shows itself up once again as incompetent.

There are also returns to investments in science and intellectual property which is held by the EU. Has the EU wasted funds or are we due a return?

There is also the matter of our investment in the institutions of the EU. Perhaps we should expect a few floors of the EU buildings which we can convert into flats, hotels and retail premises in the heart of Europe? We could make a profit out of EU officials and MEPs’ expenses.

Can we even trust the EU figures? It will not have escaped the attention of anyone that EU accounts have not been signed off for decades. Financial accuracy, prudence and diligence are not EU traits.

Let us also suppose for a moment that the media are correct in assuming that Merkel is behind the threatened impasse. If the rest of the EU were to suffer from reciprocal barriers to trade, the rest of the EU would surely become aware. Merkel would face the prospect of being regarded across Europe as a worthy successor to Kaiser Wilhelm II and his Germany’s pariah in the 1930s-40s.

Thankfully, the Germany of today is a strong democratic nation, aware of its industrial strength and with an electorate that can remove Merkel herself.

The German people will be aware that Germany’s biggest trade surplus in 2016 was with the UK. German output is higher value than French cheese or wine. Around 80% of UK car purchases support hundreds of thousands of jobs in the German car and components industries.

There is an alternative route. The EU can respect the people rather than the German autocrat and Brussels bureaucrats. Whether or not Merkel is removed in her forthcoming election, people still need jobs, whether Polish shoemakers, Mediterranean farmers, vintners and cheese makers, car workers from VW, BMW, Mercedes, Dacia and Skoda.

There is a constructive way forward as proposed by Theresa May.

Europe’s citizens deserve better than the so called leaders. They have the opportunity to direct their politicians to stick it up their Juncker. Barnier can and should be persuaded by the Council of Ministers to put the interests of EU citizens and economies before self preservation of a EU Commission. The ivory tower is no place for a Tusk!

Come on EU, Tusk was right first time. Make the process painless. You have a vibrant market and a gateway to the world on your doorstep. Listen to Theresa. If you want to prosper with us, you just May.

Why the Lords must be overturned

The House of Lords has sent back the Article 50 bill with two amendments. The first concerns the rights of EU citizens. The second was to give parliament a “meaningful say” in any deal that might be reached. The proposed amendments can be seen here.

The first of those amendments gives the government 3 months to bring forward proposals with regard to protecting both EU and EEA citizens resident in the UK.

Interpretations have suggested that if passed, this amendment automatically guarantees those rights. In practice, any such proposals might be dismissed. There are certainly grounds for further debate on those far those rights may extend.

If the amendment is seen to be binding, then opponents may argue that the government’s hands are tied in any negotiations. Effectively, a unilateral pledge is made to the EU with no reciprocal arrangement being guaranteed to British citizens resident elsewhere among the remaining 27 countries.

In practice, Theresa May has commented in parliament that most leaders within the member states support reciprocal rights with a handful of nations holding out until Article 50 has been enacted in a statement of intent to leave the EU. Informed sources suggest that central to this stance is Frau Merkel.

Most EU states have a vested interest in British citizens continuing to live in their countries. Take, for example, Spain and France, retirement locations where local communities survive through accommodating well pensioned retirees. There are of course associated tourism benefits.

Frau Merkel faces her own elections this year. It would be a strange argument to have accepted refugees but to deport people from a rich and high growing economy that provides inward investment, not least with the trading partner that gives Germany its biggest trade surplus (Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2017).

In practice, it is highly probable that EU members will choose to reciprocate. Few political figures in the last century have sought to displace long term residents, from outside their countries. Stalin, Hitler and Idi Amin spring to mind, none of who were bound by EHCR.

There is of course a perverse situation that could theoretically arise. Should a future British government decide to erode the rights of British citizens, with the wording of the amendment, EU residents could maintain a higher level of rights in perpetuity.

The second amendment is potentially much more debilitating to negotiations. During the Lords debate, it was recognised by those on both sides that the wording is “defective”.

When launching the white paper in January this year, the government committed to inform parliament as negotiations progress. There already exists a mechanism for the ratification of treaties, namely the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Both elements effectively make the amendment unnecessary, unless of course there is a more sinister motive.

What the amendment provides is for the approval of BOTH houses of parliament, that is to say the Commons AND the Lords. Moreover, the approval of BOTH houses is required should no deal be agreed and the decision is made to leave the EU anyway.

This is deeply flawed in many ways. It has already been argued in many spheres that the unelected Lords are granted an effective veto over any terms negotiated.

Consider for a moment who voted for this amendment. It was proposed by Lord Pannick, defender of BHS tycoon/typhoon Philip Green and supported by the Liberals, who gained 8% of the vote in 2015. Similarly, the Labour peers whose party attracted 30% of the vote, fell in line. Many of these, appointed by Tony Blair, also draw EU pensions, including the likes of Kinnock, Mandelson and Lord Harrison (former MEP) who described the majority of the referendum electorate “blind Brexiteers” and the Commonwealth a “corner shop”.

A significant handful of Conservatives also fell in with the Liberal amendment, as with some of the cross-benchers, not to mention abstentions. Among these, a significant proportion have families who derive income from the current arrangement with the EU, either in CAP payments or pensions from service in Bruxelles.

If successful in gaining the final say, what are the implications should they continue to thwart the will of the people? Perhaps we could take a clue from those Lords such as Ashdown, Pannick and Heseltine, that the ultimate goal is to maintain membership of the EU.

Scenario 1 is simple, the Lords agree with any deal that the government might negotiate, therefore no problem. With the Lords as currently constituted, the probability of this happening may be low, especially if the EU negotiators see a chink in our armour and insist on a bad deal for Britain.

Scenario 2a is therefore that the government negotiates what they perceive to be a satisfactory deal, 2b is that terms can not be agreed so that we revert to no deal and fall back on WTO rules. The Lords can veto either situation, based on current wording.

Article 50 provides the possibility of an extension to negotiations, with the proviso that all 28 nations agree. Again, there is a further range of scenarios.

Scenario A is that an extension is agreed. Scenario B is that Britain reapplies to remain a member of the EU. From a position of weakness, the terms of membership may be even worse than before. This would take us to 2020, when under the terms of the Fixed term Parliament Act, a general election will take place.

Scenario C is that if any of the 28 says no to an extension the EU is in a position to insist that Britain has to fall back on WTO rules anyway. The Lords then has a veto on an impossible decision, rendering itself totally without credibility. Luxemburg, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece or Wallonia each has more power over our future than does Parliament.

The most likely outcome is no deal, on the basis that somewhere along the line the EU will be in parallel negotiations over budget with 27 nations. As Theresa may quite rightly says “no deal is better than a bad deal for Britain”.

The net effect of the Lords’ amendment could be to put the country in limbo, at the mercy of others. The Remainer lords will have created the uncertainty that we were told to fear during the referendum campaign. The 300 or so peers must not be allowed to win.


Ultimately, the solution would rest with the outcome of the 2020 general election. The Labour party would have to decide between the Remainer rump or to heed the will of the people. The Liberals would have to hope that the people accept EU membership on worse terms than before and prefer the wrecking amendments of their lords.

As for the Conservatives, before the referendum, the majority of the parliamentary party were ostensibly Remainers. Now, the majority ostensibly support the will of the people. They will all have to retire or face the judgement of the country based in the position they take up at the conclusion of Article 50 talks.

There are of course other possibilities. Other leaders or even parties may emerge, just as UKIP once did and Sir James Goldsmith did with the Referendum Party.

After experiencing the chaos potentially caused by this Lords amendment, constitutional reform, i.e. abolition of a totally unelected second chamber (with the exception of hereditary peers who choose between themselves) would certainly be a vote winner.

Any such alternative party would also need a coherent strategy towards EU relations, unless Luxemburg, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece or Wallonia has already taken the matter out of our hands in 2019.

Either consciously or inadvertently, the House of Lords has created the potential for chaos and fundamentally weakened the country. MPs can oppose the amendment. With a majority of 14, it only needs 8 Conservatives to switch sides to carry it. Kenneth Clarke has already ignored one whip. The country then becomes dependent on other MPs with a conscience.

The early part of the week commencing 12th March sees the bill return to the Commons. MPs can still be lobbied. Who should prevail, the unelected House of Lords or the will of the people as expressed in a referendum? There is still time to have your say and contact your MP.

Final say – House of Burkes

The Lords met again to debate the Article 50 bill. The day was dominated by two Liberal Democrat amendments. The scene was set for entertainment and drama. The ultimate decision would be if the people or parliament should have the final say.

One amendment passed, one failed. Elsewhere, it was fun to see different perspectives of democracy from self-proclaimed democrats, particularly the Liberals who have been in the losing side in 2 referenda in around 5 years.

The first of those amendments was introduced was on providing a second referendum, this time on the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations. The second was on giving Parliament a meaningful say in approving any deal.

Lord Newby hesitantly introduced what was technically Amendment 3. Much of the debate wandered into whether the decision made by the people on 23rd June last year. Apparently, all referenda are advisory if they produce the result that any given Lord may prefer. David Cameron’s assertions, backed by his government’s propaganda, told the public something else.

Support for a second referendum came from all around the house. There were different perspectives, however. Those against the amendment were keen to highlight that the first referendum was in 1975. The second had already taken place last year.

Supporting the amendment, a number of speakers were keen to point out that such matters are “too complicated for the people”. It is always an education listening to the Lords to be reminded of the words and philosophies of Edmund Burke.

Those Lords who had been in the ‘other place’ during their careers were keen to regale us with their experience as well as why they are “representatives” rather than “delegates”.

It may surprise those sitting on the red benches that democracy has moved on somewhat since 1774. During the 19th century, more men were given the vote, even if they did not own property. By the time we got to the 20th century, even women got in on the act. Education is now open to all. We even have referenda nowadays.

In the event, Amendment 3 was defeated before Lord Pannick took to the stage over Amendment 1, allegedly ensuring that Parliament has the final say. Pannick will be remembered as the smart lawyer who took part in the legal challenge over the Article 50 process.

It was revealing that both sides of the debate agreed that the wording of Amendment 1 is slightly less than perfect. Lord Lawson highlighted this admirably, pointing out Pannick’s legal skills. Loose wording, so it would seem, presents a two year ticking time bomb.

A fellow Conservative, Lord Hogg, was among those prepared to dismiss slack wording in order to establish a principle. This is the same Hogg whose expenses claims, apparently including moat cleaning and piano tuning, gained such notoriety. Hogg did not declare his interest in CAP subsidies. On the same day, his daughter Charlotte faced calls to resign her position as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, over her failure to disclose a potential conflict of interests.

In the meantime, the veteran swashbuckler, Lord Heseltine, declared his intent to rebel with the phrase “the fight back starts here”. He is another who benefits from CAP. Later in the evening, he was lose his five jobs advising the government. Perhaps he will need to up his Lords’ attendance record from 2.7%.

It is always fun to listen to those former Honourable and Right Honourable members of the Commons whilst researching their expenses history in the other house. Among those was Baroness McIntosh who famously claimed for Jayes Fluid twice in a week from a shop which is a four hour round drive from her former constituency home, yet close to her own private properties.

Had she really not made up her mind? Baroness McIntosh is still due an EU pension from her time spent as an MEP. Her previous significant rebellion as an MP was against expenses reform in 2008.

Another trend to delight the audience is Lord Ashdown’s increasing tendency to vehemently defend what start of as “misquotes”. When read to him verbatim, he embarks on debate ranging beyond the amendment. During his time as a Royal Marine, Ashdown will have learned of the benefits of a smoke screen.

At times, the drama turned to pantomime, notably with the contribution from Lord Pearson, one of three UKIP Lords. Outnumbered 34:1 by Liberal peers, it might have been unsurprising to hear the calls of “oh no we don’t”. Perhaps he should have advocated proportional representation in the Lords, given that his party secured over 50% more votes than the Liberals?

Given the nobility presented on the day, there was one notably chivalrous moment. Baroness Deech expressed a mistrust of the remaining 27 EU nations. When challenged, she gave supporting evidence of what she had read in the papers.

In the face of being metaphorically slapped down, up stepped Lord Lamont to provide concrete quotes from key EU negotiators and politicians from the 27. his gallantry calmed the house.

Other highlights, surprisingly to some, came from the clergy. The Archbishop of Canterbury sought to reduce division. Once again, The Archbishop of York is developing a habit of appealing to common sense and explaining the existing constitutional safeguards that made the amendment unnecessary.

The summaries made perfect sense.  Some Lords do not trust the government or the people to make the right decisions. Some Lords do not trust the 27 EU states. Some seek to create a legal quagmire which will keep their practices in gainful employment whilst others will seek to use procedure to get their own way, whether the people like it or not.

The Lords decided that no further referendum was required but BOTH Houses should have the final say on approving a deal – if there is one.

Ultimately, the elected representatives in the Commons will decide. Those who go against the will of the people will have to seek re-election. If they fail, they can always be elevated to the House of Lords.

Rights of EU citizens after Brexit (HoL debate)

The House of Lords has entered the second day of the second reading of the Article 50 debate. There have been some fascinating contributions, some expected, some unexpected. One in particular stood out.

It has been an interesting week for the House of Lords, starting with Monday’s BBC documentary Meet the Lords. There have been suggestions in the media, allegedly emanating from sources close to the Prime Minister, that should the Lords seek to delay invocation of Article 50, reform of the upper chamber will inevitably follow.

Debate on Wednesday afternoon centred on what is technically called Amendment 9b. The decision of the Lords is whether the Commons should be demanded to provide a guarantee for the rights of EU nationals currently resident in the UK.

The “noble lords” who support the amendment certainly have a noble case. Central to that is that people should not be used as bargaining chips as the UK seeks to reach a deal with the EU. We should end the uncertainty for existing EU residents.

There are some very practical considerations too. Many British businesses employ nationals from elsewhere the EU. In particular, the NHS is dependent on doctors from the EU and indeed elsewhere in the world. Wholesale change within a short time period would contribute to uncertainty in the provision of services.

It is certainly right that those who have  contributed to Britain’s economy and welfare are respected and reassured.

A range of debate from the other side was presented. Among those, the headline grabber was Lord Tebbit who controversially referred to why the debate was about protecting the rights of “foreigners” when perhaps A British government should support the rights of British citizens resident in the EU.

One of those is Lord Lawson, currently living in France but returning to contribute to this debate. He guided listeners to the words of the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. The latter was arguably the star of the day.

In summary, the Archbishop started by telling us that he voted Remain. He moved to Britain in 1974 when Idi Amin kicked out Ugandan Asians. Sentamu himself opposed Amin’s behaviour, hence his arrival here.

He presented the historical context of section 9 of the Magna Carta as a basis for British law; no person would be excluded except by the law of the land.

Sentamu proceeded to give yet more context. Article 50 is the start of the Brexit, therefore the negotiation, process. An intervention challenging the “moral high ground” gave him the opportunity to develop further.

In practice, any decision to remove the rights of EU nationals would require further legislation. In the event of a decision to remove those rights, such legislation would have to be presented to Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords. It is unlikely, perhaps inconceivable, that such a bill would succeed. No British government should ever sink to the levels of Idi Amin.

Sentamu’s contribution was powerful in many ways. Even those of us who are convinced atheists have to recognise the simplicity, the clarity and the democratic process encompassed in his arguments, even if we supported the rationale behind the amendment.

What Sentamu has also done, probably inadvertently, is to provide a case for the inclusion of clergy in any reformed House of Lords. His was a voice of reason.

As for the debate, those who have been resident for more than 5 years have the right to permanent residency. Article 8 under European Court of Human Rights those with family here also have rights.

The accompanying Article 50 white paper confirms that it is the government’s intention to secure the rights of both EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals resident elsewhere in the EU.

In the event, the amendment was approved by 358 to 256, a total of 614 Lords (perhaps more) have claimed their £300 attendance allowance and expenses. There were 2 more unelected Lords than elected MPs who had voted in the Commons process.

The elected house will be justified in overturning the Lords’ vote. British law already provides protections for EU nationals living here. The EU may seek to deny reciprocal rights. If they are to seek to deny British nationals abroad those same rights, then we can be delighted to have voted in a referendum not to be a part of a totalitarian EU that seeks to emulate Idi Amin.

As the process continues, we can thank God, if he or she exists, for the guidance of those such as the Archbishop of York.