Fast and loose

According to the new Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, he made it clear during the 2016 referendum campaign “that we should strive for a good deal, but if that wasn’t available, that we should go on and make a success of Brexit … I was questioned on it by the BBC almost every time I appeared and so was Michael Gove… There’s all sorts of interviews which said that of course we’d prefer a deal, but that there would be a risk.” In Raab’s telling of events, people knew what they were voting for three years ago and as a result the government now has a mandate for a no-deal Brexit.

When challenged in a BBC interview as to the veracity of this statement, Raab responded by suggesting that “the institutional memory of the BBC is a bit sketchy on this as a whole.” Fortunately, those who appear prominently in the media leave a digital trail that can be mined to check whether their claims stand up to scrutiny. Both the BBC and Channel 4 have fact-checked Raab’s media interviews, social media posts, newspaper articles, speeches and Vote Leave campaign material only to conclude that there are no clear examples of Raab’s stated position. His consistent position was that the EU would be likely to offer the UK a trade deal because “it’s certainly not in the Europeans’ interest to erect trade barriers.” Indeed, in February 2016 he wrote a newspaper article suggesting that “The Remain campaign assert the EU would cut off its nose to spite its face, vindictively defying its own interests by shutting Britain out of its markets altogether. That’s not remotely credible.”

There are those who accuse Raab of being a “morally vacuous liar” who shamelessly holds to the view that his government has a mandate for a no-deal Brexit, despite the fact that the evidence points to the contrary. Others have pointed out that those who lie in the course of their job get fired but Raab has been rewarded with a promotion. I couldn’t possibly comment! But in all likelihood, Raab will get away with such falsehoods because the political dynamic has changed. We live in an era of political beliefs, not facts, which makes life difficult for those of us who seek at least some fig-leaf of empirical cover for the positions we hold.

All this is very dangerous because it erodes the lingering basis of trust between politicians and the electorate. It is one thing for politicians to be perceived to be lying; it is quite another to actually do so, particularly when the consequences of politicians’ actions have profound economic consequences. Dominic Raab’s rewriting of history means that voters did not have a chance to inform themselves of the consequences of a no-deal Brexit. Indeed, the evidence suggests that this issue did not impinge on voters’ consciousness until well after the referendum.

In order to look more closely at this issue, I took a look at Google search terms in the UK for Brexit-related keywords, starting with “no-deal Brexit.” The data do not give the exact number of searches but is reported as an index based at 100 for the maximum number of weekly searches. The latest data suggest that the highest value occurs for the week of 10 March 2019. More revealing, however, is that the index registers its first non-zero value only in March 2017 – 9 months after the referendum – and does not start to become a more prominent issue until the latter months of 2017. That is not exactly what you would call an informed electorate. Similarly, Google searches for phrase “hard Brexit” do not start to become more widespread until September 2016 (chart).

In my view, the government will be taking a huge risk in triggering a no-deal Brexit given the extent to which many people seemed unaware of such an outcome at the time they cast their vote. This may not be a problem if there are no adverse economic consequences, but if there are I would not like to be the one explaining why the government has taken such a course of action. As it happens, I maintain that Boris Johnson’s government does not really want to leave the UK without a  deal and that its tactic is designed to appeal to the party faithful in a bid to dissuade voters from defecting to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. Indeed, I suspect that Johnson hopes parliament will block his no-deal Brexit plan which in turn will allow him to call a general election.

It is, however, an extremely risky strategy. A no-deal Brexit could be triggered by accident if parliament does not play ball. And it might even be the case that Johnson means what he says. But a look at the evidence makes it clear that voters did not consider the prospect of a no-deal Brexit in 2016 and they may be reluctant to support a government that mismanages the UK’s exit from the EU. If Johnson wants to remain in office for any length of time, which surely is his aim, he either has to tone down the rhetoric or ensure that a no-deal Brexit does not result in the disruption that many fear. Unfortunately, he cannot guarantee the latter.

DExEU's Midnight Runners

Today has been another one of the momentous days in British politics which appear to have become all too frequent as a result of Brexit. Yesterday’s cabinet meeting was an ominous sign that all that was not well: Whilst the Withdrawal Agreement is a large document, and was always going to take a long time to digest, it was evident that a five hour meeting hinted at major disagreements. And so it proved when Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab tendered his resignation this morning.

This comes just four months after the previous incumbent, David Davis, resigned when it became clear he could not support the Chequers Plan. To misquote Oscar Wilde, to lose one Brexit Secretary is unfortunate but to lose two is careless. To be charitable, the job of Brexit Secretary is a thankless task for a Leaver when the process is being controlled by the prime minister’s office. But it is also an indication of how difficult it is to deliver the kind of EU departure that would satisfy Brexit supporters. In addition to Raab and Davis, we should not forget that junior minister Steve Baker, another prominent Brexit supporter, also left DExEU in July to form the trio we should name DExEU’s Midnight Runners. As was the case in the wake of the referendum in summer 2016, it is another example of how Brexit supporters tend to run away from the mess they have created. And when they have been given ministerial responsibility, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory with Boris Johnson widely regarded as one of the worst Foreign Secretaries of all time.

But it is not just Brexiteers who object to the Withdrawal Agreement, as Theresa May’s session to parliament indicated this morning. Many MPs will vote against the EU agreement for a variety of reasons – perhaps because they are opposed to the terms of the deal, or simply because they oppose Brexit. Or, in the case of the opposition Labour Party, because the leadership sees this as an opportunity to force a general election. Despite the mounting opposition, Theresa May is doggedly determined to put the Withdrawal Agreement to parliament. And as I noted yesterday, it can still pass depending on the number of Conservative dissenters. But the risks are rising.

The first problem is the position of the prime minister herself. Jacob Rees-Mogg was the first MP to send a letter of no confidence in the PM to the backbench 1922 Committee and up to 12 others have confirmed they have followed suit. Recall that it will take 48 such letters to trigger a leadership contest. JRM has no chance of becoming leader himself and of the others known to have sent letters, the likes of Brexiteers Steve Baker, Nadine Dorries and Andrew Bridgen have as much chance of becoming PM as I do of winning the Nobel Prize for physics. Indeed, the latter two characters belong to the category of politician characterised by Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole as “the genuine hallmarked, unadulterated, slack-jawed, open-mouthed, village idiot variety.” As O’Toole pointed out “the Brexiteer MP Nadine Dorries admitted in effect that she didn’t know what a customs union is. Her comrade Andrew Bridgen said last month: ‘As an English person, I do have the right to go over to Ireland and I believe that I can ask for a passport. Can’t I?’” (Don’t believe it? Listen here.)

Whatever the PM’s personal position, we now have to reckon with the real possibility that the Withdrawal Agreement may not pass through parliament. What happens if it does not? The first recourse would be to go back to Brussels and secure a minor concession on the pretext of being able to put the bill before parliament for a second time. If that fails then Theresa May is in real trouble. The sensible strategy at that point would be to extend the duration of the Article 50 process, which is possible if there is unanimity on all sides. But May explicitly ruled out that option this morning (again).  So either she reneges on her commitment or is forced to resign whilst another Conservative prime minister is installed who is prepared to extend the Article 50 period. Politicians at this stage appear more likely to ask for an extension than push for a second referendum. In any case, given that time is short, it is likely that an extended Article 50 period is a prerequisite to enable a “people’s vote” because it almost certainly cannot now take place before 29 March 2019.

None of this will satisfy the “slack-jawed, open-mouthed, village idiot” brigade which believes that no deal is better than compromise. But they are losing ground in the war to deliver their form of Brexit. A poll conducted today by Sky News suggests that whilst only 14% of respondents support the prime minister’s deal, 54% would prefer no Brexit versus just 32% for a no deal outcome. We know how reliable polls can be, but this is not a one-off result. And whilst Theresa May gets a pretty low approval rating of just 31% in  terms of those most trusted to lead the country through the Brexit process, she still leads Jeremy Corbyn and is well ahead of Boris Johnson and JRM.

For politicians who set so much store by delivering the “will of the people” it seems that many of them have lost touch with it. The electorate is becoming fed up with the political posturing and any politician prepared to gamble with the country’s economic future ought to think twice, for the electorate may yet wreak its revenge.