An unexpected deal
In my last post I was rather dismissive of the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chances of pulling a shiny new Brexit deal out of the bag. I also predicted that the current government would be short lived. Well, at least one of those things turned out to be true. In a move that surprised many, last minute negotiations led to a new Brexit deal with the EU on 17 October that removed the hated backstop while preventing a hard border on the island of Ireland. Apart from the changes to the Irish border the deal remained largely the same as Theresa May’s deal which was rejected by Parliament three times. The key changes which remove the need for a hard border are to have customs checks on goods that travel to Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, though these would be very light touch, allowing free flow of goods between the north and the south. The deal was quickly dismissed by opposition parties as unacceptable. Crucially, the Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist party (DUP) portrayed it as a betrayal of Northern Ireland as it will remain aligned to some EU regulations on goods which could theoretically exclude Northern Ireland from some future trade deals with other countries. Other parties were also upset by another change – to appeal to hard line Brexiteers, the so-called ‘level playing field’ provisions were moved from the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement to the more aspirational Political Declaration. These provisions establish how closely the UK will stick to EU regulations in the future, and so removing the legal guarantee was interpreted as a signal the Conservatives intend to weaken regulation in areas such as workers rights, maternity pay, paid holiday entitlement and environmental protections. And despite repeated protestations that ‘our NHS is not for sale’, many remained convinced that the UK would be forced to pay a lot more to American pharmaceutical companies for drugs as part of any future trade deal with the US.
Another meaningful vote
With most opposition MPs against the deal, the DUP pledging to vote against but hard line Brexiteer Conservative MPs backing it, the numbers looked tight going into the fourth meaningful vote on the deal on 19 October. The government was reasonably confident they just about had the numbers to get it passed – there are 15 to 20 Labour MPs from strongly Leave constituencies who, regardless of their own opinions, feel obliged to back any reasonable deal to leave the EU and who are willing to defy the Labour whip to do so. Despite being dubbed ‘Super Saturday’, the actual vote lacked the high drama of previous votes, instead a different drama played out. At the last minute the Commons voted to pass what was known as the Letwin amendment, introduced by Oliver Letwin, a Tory until a couple months ago. This amendment required the full Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) to be approved before Parliament could be deemed to back the deal, rather than a single vote. The thinking behind the amendment was that such a fundamental change to the way the country functions should only be approved following proper parliamentary scrutiny. After the Letwin Amendment passed Johnson decided there was no point in holding the vote at all, so everybody went home…
Dead in a ditch?
The implications of the Letwin amendment went beyond mere procedure. Because Parliament had not approved a Brexit deal by the deadline of 19 October, the Benn Act came into force – Johnson was required by law to request a Brexit extension from the EU. He had long said that he would refuse to do so, famously declaring he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than miss the 31 October deadline for EU exit. If he didn’t send the letter (which was helpfully drafted for him in the body of the Act) then he would be breaking the law and it would spark a full blown constitutional crisis. Late that night Downing Street announced that the letter had been sent – an unsigned photocopy of the text from the Act. The unsigned letter was accompanied by two other letters asking the EU to ignore his request. Yes, this is the level British politics has now reached.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson
Yet another vote
Undeterred, Johnson pressed ahead with the WAB. If the Bill could be debated and passed before 31 October then the UK could still leave as planned. It was always going to be a tall order to pass a lengthy and highly complex bill in a matter of weeks – such things traditionally involve months of detailed line by line scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament and a plethora of amendments. The Bill was introduced on 21 October and had its second reading (the first high level debate and vote) on 22 October. After a lively debate a historic milestone was reached – the Commons voted in favour of the Bill by 329 to 299 votes. The first time Parliament had backed any type of deal. The government’s triumph was short lived, however, as 10 minutes later the House rejected Johnson’s proposed timetable for the remainder of the process. The government proposed a scant three days of scrutiny in the House of Commons before the Bill passed across to the House of Lords. Those opposed to the deal claimed this was far too short to allow proper debate and amendment. Government supporters argued that after three years arguing about Brexit there was little still to debate. With the timetable rejected, the government was forced to abandon its plans to push the deal through before Halloween and accepted that an extension was inevitable. The EU, with a weary familiarity, confirmed yet another extension to 31 January 2020 though did first do a head-fake with France claiming for a day or two that they were going to reject the extension. In the end the EU settled for admonishing that it might be the last such extension it is willing to grant. The government then reverted to the fallback position – a snap general election to break the stalemate. Following some more parliamentary shenanigans, this was duly approved by all parties and the stage is now set for a 12 December election.
Yay! An election!
In the UK, each of the 650 constituencies has its own competition and whichever candidate wins the most votes is returned as the MP for that constituency — just like how US Congressional House Districts each hold individual races and send one Representative each to Congress. The difference in a Parliamentary system is that the party that wins a majority of the seats then forms the government, essentially becoming the executive branch for that session of Parliament. In US politics the party with the most seats in the House picks the Speaker of the House. In UK politics the party leader becomes Prime Minister who then chooses all the Secretaries of State for government departments (equivalent to cabinet secretaries) and other junior ministers. If no party has a majority of seats then two parties can combine forces and form a coalition government, or the largest party can run a minority government (as the Conservatives are now) and rely on winning support for individual votes from other parties.
Campaigns are much shorter in Britain that in the US. officially, the campaign lasts for just 5 weeks though under normal circumstances, with the date fixed well in advance the unofficial campaign lasts much longer. There are also strict rules regarding how much candidates and parties are allowed to spend, making it much less of a spectacle than the US general election.
A Second Referendum?
This election does, though, promise to be rather more exciting and unpredictable than usual, if the parties manage to overcome the widespread sense of political exhaustion prevalent in the country. It’s a major gamble for all the main parties. The Conservatives are well ahead in the polls, with some putting their lead as much as 16 points. This would be more than enough to win them a comfortable majority and push through Johnson’s deal without serious problems. Nothing can be guaranteed, however. Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party has pledged to stand candidates in the majority of English seats which risks splitting the Brexiteer vote and allowing other parties to prevail.
Right now things look bleak for the main opposition Labour Party. Languishing in the polls, their Brexit stance is seen as too nuanced (some would say confused) to resonate with voters heartedly fed up with the whole thing. If they win, they intend to negotiate yet another deal with the EU and then hold another referendum pitting their new deal against a Remain option. But they won’t say whether they will actually support their own deal in that referendum or support Remain – they hope not clearly backing Leave or Remain will allow them to win both Leave and Remain voters but it currently seems as if it’s more likely they will lose both. Labour does intend to focus heavily on the perceived failings of 10 years of Conservative rule rather than exclusively on Brexit but it’s unclear whether such a tactic will cut through with an electorate heavily polarised along Brexit lines.
The possibility of a coalition or minority government means that if “losing” parties can keep the biggest party from winning an outright majority they may have the chance to form a coalition government together, or hold the balance of power over a minority government. The DUP held this position for the Conservatives, until falling out over the new Brexit deal. This reality allows for tactical voting by voters who have the overarching goal of defeating Brexit. The smaller, Remain-backing opposition parties are pushing hard for voters to select the candidate with the best chance of defeating the Conservative candidate in their particular constituency rather than voting according to their actual political leanings. For example a Liberal Democrat voter in a seat where there is a tight race between Conservative and Labour might vote Labour to ensure the Tory doesn’t win. Even though the smaller parties have ruled out forming formal coalitions, acutely aware of the electoral damage caused to the Liberal Democrats following their coalition with the Conservatives in 2010, they could still band together on Brexit related votes and realise their holy grail – a confirmatory vote on any deal with Remain an option.
If voters embrace tactical voting and vote based on just one issue, Brexit, then the general election would essentially become a second referendum on if the UK still wants to leave Europe. However, as mentioned above, Labour is not actually pushing that approach. Not to mention elections are notoriously unpredictable. No one can forget Theresa May’s disastrous campaign in 2017 which saw the Conservatives lose their majority rather than increase it. With the mood of the country so volatile, the Conservative fear is that there may be large swings in sentiment during the campaign or that the polls may be wrong.
Buckle up, its starting to look a lot like Christmas and for the UK that means yet more rancorous, divisive politics!
London Photo by Jamie Davies on Unsplash