Malcolm Blair-Robinson's Blog, page 107

The Brexit Judgment: Should May Move On?

Three senior Tory backbenchers, all Remainers, but supported by a prominent Tory Leaver, have urged May to drop her appeal to the Supreme Court and get on with pushing a bill through parliament to activate Article 50. They fear she will lose and thus waste time and a good deal of public money. Downing Street spokespeople, who nowadays sound like a backstreet PR department of a dodgy goods company under siege, insist she has a strong case and will win. I am not a lawyer but I have read the judgment of the High Court and I have an interest in and comment on our constitution or lack of it. The four grandees also think that if the nations are separately represented, as they now intend, it is not impossible that the Supreme Court might rule that they in effect have a veto, in the case of Scotland and Northern Ireland, who voted to Remain. That would be a loss to May of custard pie in the face proportions.

Unless there is a technicality in the way in which the 1972 Act was drafted which has been missed, or in which the Referendum Act was drafted so that it somehow overrides the 1972 Act,  she cannot win. Yet on refection there is perhaps a way of winning, which might constitutionally be far worse than losing. It is this. When stripped down to the bare bones, our constitution is an Absolute Monarchy.

The Queen owns everything including the land we hold free and in perpetuity, and all public bodies have a title which starts with Her Majesty’s, including both the Government and the Opposition. It could therefore be that when such nostrums as the Crown in Parliament are added, it begins to look as if the Sovereign Power remains with the Queen, but it is ceded to parliament which can then pass laws which the Queen must sign to make lawful, because the power remains hers. By that reasoning it could be argued that if the Queen should decide, in the persona of her prime minister, to withdraw that concession, bypass parliament and act directly on a mandate given by her people, she can do so.

Winning by that style of judgment would sort out Article 50, but would make clear to the country,  the world and not least to an enraged parliament, that GB is not  what it proclaims on the tin; a parliamentary democracy. Such is the hate of the people for politicians and all their works in most parts of the UK  (but not in Scotland) that, while parliament will be in a tumult of protest, the people might breathe a sigh of relief.

Brexit: Is It Undeliverable?

This must now be a question, even if there is not yet an answer. The scale of the legal complexities now emerging on every front are beginning to frighten even those who understand them. Not only are there problems with the constitutional process, but parliament has to enact something watertight, or else there could be a legal challenge all the way to the EU Supreme Court from some angry anti-Brexiteer or corporation. There are no civil servants and very few lawyers who were active in 1972 and recall what our law and process was like before we joined the EEC. So everybody is on a learning curve.

Moreover it is becoming clear that political problems are emerging in the EU itself, arising out of a failure to deliver an even share of prosperity across the EU, not least because of the failure to recognize that a currency, the euro, cannot operate without a government. Greece is bust but Germany pretends it isn’t and everybody does as Germany says. But unrest is building in Italy and France and to a lesser extent in Spain and Portugal. Electoral stirrings are felt in Belgium, Holland and Denmark. By the time the May government works out what its negotiating position is and has a legally untouchable mandate to trigger Article 50, the EU could itself be so politically convulsed that it is in no position to agree anything, as unanimity is the requirement for such a significant event as Brexit. Thus at the end of two years we could find ourselves out, with multiple legal and contractual issues and liabilities unresolved, yet still half in because these unresolved issues would not allow us fully to detach. Like a ghost haunting the corridors of an increasingly weather beaten EU Commission.

It may still turn out well and all is not lost, but it is a bigger project than previously foreseen. The biggest mistake of all was to fail to investigate the feasibility of Brexit and plan what would need to be done, under what legal structure and with what objectives, before the referendum was called. The lack of such a plan and the seeming inability to put one together by the fractious May government is reported to have reduced senior civil servants to ‘despair’. Another Cameron mistake in an ever growing list. The country is now in the position of having voted for something that was not available on anything like the terms promised. Like a holiday sold for a luxury experience in a hotel which, on arrival it is found, is not yet built.

But, and this is another scenario not foreseen, something strange is happening. The economy continues to grow (albeit at the very low western level), manufacturing is picking up due to the lower pound and consumers appear to be spending with some confidence. The reason may be this. Our economy has a massive trade imbalance, the second highest in the world, as much because of too many imports as because of too few exports. If we simply walked away from the EU in the style of leaving a party which had lost its zing, having failed to reach any worthwhile agreement with the other twenty-seven, by then in their own political turmoil, two things could happen. Either trading arrangements stay as they are or the EU slaps tariffs on our goods. In which case we slap the equivalent on theirs and create vast opportunities for home manufacture of almost everything. And viable home food markets for  farmers no longer undercut by produce from eastern Europe. So either way it might not really matter quite as much as we think.

If you are now confused because this blog appears to be debating opposites with itself, you are right. It is to make the point that there may be actually a lot more in bureaucratic process in the EU than there is substance and effect. Everyone has to live and when push comes to shove they will go on doing so. Even EU member states. The power of Brussels may be a mirage. If that is the case the concentration should be not arguing with each other and with the EU, but building a Brexit proof economy which will prosper on its own terms, through its own initiatives, developing opportunities of its own making.

Back to Hammond.

 

 

NATO: Is It Over?

Not yet. However reform is long overdue. At the end of the cold war I declared that with the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact, NATO to should stand down, since the threat which it was designed to deter had gone away. The problem with military alliances is that if they are not needed to counter a threat, they can easily create one, because their very existence is threatening to those outside it.

As long ago as 2009 I wrote and published that if NATO was to remain, especially if it was to expand east into the old Warsaw Pact territories, Russia should become a member, as it was a European power. Future threats to Europe would come from outside Europe not within. This did not happen and Russia found not only that it was excluded, but that everyone else, right up to its border, was to be included. Alarm bells rang in Moscow. Recalling invasions from the West by Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, Russia set about modernizing its military. We know the rest.

Meanwhile NATO, although it had the wits to refuse to join in the invasion of Iraq in 1991, engaged itself in the Balkans and Afghanistan then blundered into Libya. The Balkans were stabilized, Afghanistan is a mess, Libya is a chaotic mess, Al Qaeda has morphed into IS and, as part of the chain reaction, Syria has been all but destroyed in a terrible civil war.  The same fate now seems to be engulfing Yemen. Clearly reform, realignment and remodeling across the whole international scene is a matter of priority. Whilst NATO sees itself as part of the solution, it is also part of the problem. The wind of change must blow though its corridors also. It very likely will, because President Elect Trump has expressed sentiments very similar to those set out above.  The terms will be simple. If NATO wants his money it will have to do his bidding.

Tensions In Trump Tower

There are reports that Donald Trump’s transition process is proving bumpy. This is not surprising. Like Brexit, few believed even in his own team that he could actually win and preparations for such a dramatic outcome were limited. But the biggest problem Trump will be battling just now is that he is his own man, the presidency was his project and during the journey he was abandoned by his party, for whom in the end he not only delivered the White House, but also both Houses of Congress.

Quickly Republicans of every stripe rush to his side. Obama sets off overseas to assure nervous Europeans that Donald is a good guy with their interests at heart. The idea, of course, is to tame the outsider, so that the firebrand of the campaign trail becomes the pussy cat in the Oval Office.

Well dream on. Donald Trump is his own man and will be his own president. He owes nothing to nobody, but such as Republicans have, they owe in large part to him. Expect a lot more firings yet. This will be Donald Trump’s White House and nobody else’s. There will be a few kind words and a little reaching out, but nothing to compare to the reaching, of the  Republican establishment, for a slice of humble pie.

Austerity Crisis Looms: Can Hammond Stop It?

Today’s argument with the Prison Officers, ending in a government court injunction forcing them back to work, is a symptom of a big storm brewing, which Hammond has to deal with in his long awaited Autumn Statement, in effect his first Budget. The problem, and it is big with multiple focus points, is that after years of austerity and seemingly endless cuts, public services of every sort and kind are beginning to creak and fail. All manner of initiatives in the name of efficiency are afoot, but if the truth be told, which it never is, the initiatives mostly cost more in extended bureaucracy than they save in operating costs.

The prisons are today’s news, usually it is the NHS or care for the elderly, but it can be anything through schools, policing, potholes, mental health; the list is endless and growing.  Corbyn and Brexit are warnings but much worse will come if Hammond does not convincingly ease the pressure and find new money to plug gaps and reinvigorate the public services. Austerity has enabled the higher paid, especially the professional classes and the political establishment, to do rather well these last several years. But the pressure is now really bearing down upon the mass of the people, who have seen their standards fall and their hopes for the future retreat, in the course of a single generation. Everywhere you look there are signs of a big political shock in the making.

May talks endlessly in platitudes sounding not unlike stuff rolled out of Conservative Central Office in the nineteen fifties. But so far her government has done nothing but argue within itself. So, it all hinges on Hammond.

  .

So How Goes Brexit?

That is a good question. Because since the June vote and the leisurely pace of the government coming to terms with the complexities of its exit task, for which no preparations whatever had been made, the world has changed almost beyond recognition.  So the environment for the negotiations bares little connection to that which prevailed when their need was triggered.

First let us consider the home front. There is no agreement yet within the government about the specification of what it is they want; hard Brexit with immigration control, no fees and no membership of the free market favoured by some, or softer Brexit which bargains some freedom of movement with some access to the single market, especially for cars and financial services, involving some fees and some oversight by the EU Supreme Court. So far these issues remain unresolved within the cabinet and its structure of committees. There are reports of tempers rising.

In parliament itself there is no majority for Brexit at all, but there is a recognition that the majority decision by the people to leave the EU must be allowed to stand. There is nevertheless a widespread belief that while the voters backed Leave as a principle, they of necessity have left the details to be worked out by their own sovereign parliament. Unfortunately May had other ideas, namely that Article 50, which is irrevocable, could be triggered by her on her own, using the Royal Prerogative. Her intention to rule by decree was subject to legal challenge and the High Court said No , she could not do that, and the triggering must be supported by a parliamentary vote in favour. Stubborn as she is, she has appealed to the Supreme Court and we shall not know until after Christmas whether we live in a full Parliamentary democracy or not.

The faint hearted may think that is quite enough to cope with, especially if you are not sure what you want. Wanting ‘the best deal for the British people’ is as vacuous a platitude as have a nice day. But then along comes Trump, the U.S. President whom everybody said could not happen. He wants to end globalization in its present format, loves Putin, thinks NATO is way past its sell by date, is anti-elitism, ant-establishment  anti-the status quo and wants to reset everything everywhere. As yet details are scant, but they will gradually emerge. Meanwhile May had to wait for her phone call until he had spoken to Uncle Tom Cobley and all, but the first foreign political leader to be invited to talks in New York as the President Elect gets busy on the stuff of forming a government, is, yes I know but it’s true, Nigel Farage. One dare not even imagine the atmosphere in Number Ten when this news came through.

Wow. But it goes on. In the EU Merkel, Hollande, and Renzi are all up for election in 2017, in the midst of our Brexit negotiations. Marine LePen, the Far Right outsider, now looks a credible prospect for winning the French presidency. She loves Trump, Putin and Brexit and is minded to Frexit. As are various fringe anti-EU anti-globalization parties  all across the EU, who either may win or win enough to give Brussels the fright of its life. In other words it is no longer impossible that negotiations will be taking place with an organisation which is itself unravelling and will either have to fully Federalise within a properly democratic structure in which the hated Commission is shut down, or de-centralise to return to its old format of a customs union among friendly states. We may not know exactly what we are withdrawing from nor what we hope to have a future relationship with.

But there is hope. Trump likes Britain. His mother was Scottish. He has property up there. He will be likely to offer us some sort of trade deal to replace the EU. And the Chinese are keen too. So if we can cut  deals with the world number one economy and the world number two, the rest will take care of itself? Maybe. We must hope so. If Hammond abandons austerity and  embarks on a Trump style economic stimulus, the future begins to take shape. If he tinkers at the margin but sticks broadly to the path mapped out by Osborne, then there is another bump in the road ahead. There will have to be a change of government.

Oh, and keep an eye on Nigel Farage.

 

Brexit, Trump, Article 50: As the Dust Settles

Every now and again there is a change of political weather. Occasionally there is a seismic shift in the directional thrust of political initiative, which heralds a new diplomatic, political and economic settlement. This is happening now. This blog is happy about that.  We believe a change of direction is called for and indeed essential, because the existing structure is close to collapse.

Globalization has concentrated too much power and wealth in too few hands in a financial system which sucks from the poor to feed the rich. Vast world imbalances of debts and surpluses have developed which cannot be sustained, and trade is being conducted on terms which enrich some but impoverish a multitude. The West’s interventionist foreign policy, post the fall of the Berlin Wall, has bordered on the imbecile and is now delivering chaos in the Middle East, a resurgence of Russian power, the emergence of China as the strategic military power in Asia and the renewed fear that the threat of nuclear war has, after all, not gone away. It is impossible to imagine a worse report.

Yet the thing that has struck me most about the torrent of comment from the great and the good, the wise and the clever, which has flooded the media since Trump’s victory, is that not one of them understands what is happening. They are like rabbits caught mesmerised in the headlights of an onrushing juggernaut, because the common factor with all of them is that one way and another, bar a few things which needed doing on a fine day, everything was generally okay.

Corbyn, Brexit and Trump are all the same thing. And just like an erupting volcano the last bang is the biggest. Trump plans to shift the direction of America more drastically than any president since Abraham Lincoln. In so doing he has the power to change the world order. His vision is of much more limited globalization which stops domestic industries in the higher currency value West being exported to the lower currency value East. Global free trade is fine, but very much the opposite if it bears down on the base of some national economies until they explode.

Trump sees that and favours a world order of three strategic powers, the US, Russia and China, each with a sphere of influence, of which America is the strongest, but who cooperate for their own and the common good (as they see it). He sees a reduction in confrontation and an increase in cooperation to defeat universal enemies like IS. The future is built more easily and a good deal less expensively, if it is built on a recognition that nations are different, but share common interests which are more important than irreconcilable differences. In short this turns everything the great and the clever thought they knew, on its head. Especially the utterly barmy notion that you can impose successful democracy by outside force. Trump proclaims, correctly, that in the digital world (which is fundamentally different to what has gone before) democracy spreads by good example and has to come from within. It has also to come from broad consensus; a quality entirely absent from vast tracts of the world, which ensures that losers at the polls are willing to be governed by the winners, who in turn govern for all.

Of course Trump said on the stump vile things about women and minorities and wild things about healthcare and climate change. He stoked anger and used it as a propellant to drive his campaign. However he is already rowing back from unsustainable extremes and if he holds his nerve and sticks to his core agenda, he may walk into history as one of the makers of a better destiny for mankind. If he flies off the handle and creates not progress but chaos, as his enemies hope he will, his presidency will implode in impeachment and he will not see even the end of his fist term.

With this dramatic main feature starring Trump, the B movie, Brexit, continues in the making, within a framework of legal challenges and internal arguments of  paralysing intensity. For this reason the relationship between the UK (itself creaking and perhaps dissolving?) and the two economic superpowers, America and China, is critical. And here it is with relief we can report that the signs are that the May government has got that message.

More on that another day.

So It Is Trump

All along I felt a Trump victory was on the cards because I saw the connection to Brexit and Corbyn. People across the western capitalist system are angry because it has favoured the minority at the expense of the majority. Given a chance to vote against the political, ruling and financial establishments they will do so. But I lacked the courage and although regular visitors to this blog will know that I dropped hints, I did not commit. Perhaps I should have had the courage of my instinct; conviction would be too strong a word.

The Trump victory is a signal that real and profound change is coming. Exactly what that will be is not yet defined, but  Globalization is in for, at the very least, a significant tweak. It is too early to say more than that. There is good news. As we in the UK flounder ever deeper in a Brexit quagmire, we may discover to our surprise, an unlikely  friend who offers from the New World an unexpected helping hand. The  ‘go to the back of the queue‘  days are well and truly over. That must bring some cheer to Downing Street, now under siege from almost every quarter.

Trump or Clinton? We Will Know Soon

It appears too close to call. The scientific evidence, polling, points to a Clinton win and this is what most commentators on both sides of the Atlantic expect. But no one is betting on it. Because the Trump campaign has huge momentum and there are continuous anecdotal reports that those who travel the country encounter more Trump enthusiasm than the Clinton lead in the polls suggests should be there.

We do know that Americans are widely embarrassed by the most extraordinarily abusive and divisive campaign perhaps since the 1850s, with two very different candidates, but both among the most hated ever. Yet here Trump has the edge. Nobody wants Clinton, but people are voting for her, including republicans, to keep Trump out.  Some are voting for Trump to keep Clinton out but most of his support comes from people who believe in him as their champion and agent of change. Whoever wins in the early hours of Wednesday, America will appear to change, yet the truth is that it has changed already. These two unlikely contenders are not the reason for that change but the product of it. Profound change  about what America is and what it stands for. The rest of the world tries nervously to work out what that means.

Brexit Rows: Things Are Getting Worse

The referendum was advisory as authorised by Parliament, not mandatory. Parliament insists on being consulted but all parties have agreed to accept the result, so long as Britain and it people in all parts of the Union, do not suffer.

While the 16 million who voted Remain were voting for a clearly defined prospectus, the status quo, Leave voted for an objective, exit the EU, without any specification as to what this would entail in practice. It follows that if Leave meant house prices dropping by two thirds, 6 million unemployed and war with Germany, the outcome of the referendum would have been different. I am being ridiculous to make the point. The absence of any specification of what Leave would entail and the lack of any kind of plan to implement it, or as it now turns out even a clear understanding of the lawful process to follow, makes the referendum peculiarly unbalanced.

The failure of Cameron to keep his promise, stay at his post and send off the letter triggering Article 50 immediately, has created a chain of events and a vacuum of action which has called into question the whole project in its entirety. Formally triumphant Brexiteers are now almost unhinged with anger that Leaving involves adherence to the Law. The parliament whose sovereignty Leave was determined to restore, has become the very sovereignty they now wish to deny. This is not an Executive democracy; it is a representative one and the sovereignty of the people is exercised by them through parliament.

Leaving the EU is a gigantic undertaking with huge consequences, as yet unquantified, which may not all be good and which may in the end impact most cruelly on many who voted for it.  It is not the same as getting up and leaving the restaurant because you don’t like the cooking. There is now confusion about process, objective, outcome and impact. Hard core leavers are both angry and abusive and in some unstable personalities, even violent. But, and this is a big but, they may no longer be in the majority. The latest poll reveals that the majority would, given a second chance, vote Remain. The margin is about the same as the Brexit result only reversed. Clearly to work Brexit has to have a high degree on consensus between both sides, or we face a sundered nation and a broken union.

What a mess.