In Boris, the Tories are about to exchange a PM ferociously good at detail who can't lead, for a chancer who can lead but can't do detail. What May attempted was rational for a technocrat - steer a middle course and reconcile the two sides to an equal share of the disappointment. It's clear that this is not going to work. There is going to be no meeting of minds at some Goldilocks halfway point, the EU is not going to allow it even if it was technically and legally possible.
So, to move things on, Boris (let us assume it will be him) will either have to persuade leavers to accept remaining in (or so close we might as well be) or convince remainers that leaving without a deal will be relatively pain free and all will be well in the end. No doubt he will be drafting powerful speeches, full of words to stump Greek and Latin scholars, setting out both cases. The calculation for him will be to decide which case sounds better, is easier to argue and has most chance of success. I don't believe he has any strong conviction either way.
His objective once he walks through the door of No 10 will be to hang on as long as he can, the fate of the nation is secondary - at best - to his own career.
In my opinion, wiser heads might be able persuade him that leaving without a deal is the short way back to writing a column for The Telegraph. This is assuming parliament will permit it anyway. Delaying or revoking Article 50 is the long way back since he can ride out the storm at No 10 for a few years. The economy at least won't be reduced to a smoking wasteland.
BoJo started his pitch with a double page spread in The Sunday Times where he claimed:
"I think our friends and partners need to understand that the money [£39 billion] is going to be retained until we have greater clarity about the way forward. I always thought it was extraordinary that we should agree to write that entire cheque before having a final deal".
This has been tried many times before. It was put by Charlie
Elphicke (Dover) on 15th January, to the government's most senior law officer, in the House of Commons. He urged the Attorney General not to
"agree to write out a cheque for £39 billion of hard-earned taxpayers’
money unless or until a future relationship agreement is agreed that is
legally binding".
To which the AG replied (HERE):
"You
cannot say to somebody to whom you owe money, “I am not going to pay
you my debt unless you give me something else.” It is not attractive, it
is not consistent with the honour of this country and it is not
consistent with the rule of law. The fact of the matter is that the
withdrawal agreement settles those historic obligations".
Later
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) had another go, suggesting the House of Lords had ruled
there was no legal obligation to pay. Cox was having none of that either
(HERE):
"My hon. Friend is wrong. The House of Lords did not say that. The House
of Lords Committee said that there was no obligation in EU law, but that
there may well be public international law obligations. The basis of
the argument that there are no public international law obligations is
in my judgment—I have tested it, as I always do on matters of law, with
some very distinguished lawyers with expertise in the field—flimsy at
best. The House of Lords Committee did not say there are no public
international law obligations"
Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Brexit Committee in the European Parliament was less than impressed:
Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Brexit Committee in the European Parliament was less than impressed:
Boris Johnson threatens not to pay the Brexit bill. This would not only hurt the UK’s credibility as an international partner, but it is absolutely unacceptable and contradicts what almost every lawyer in the UK thinks about it.https://t.co/cfpzGxttjG— Guy Verhofstadt (@guyverhofstadt) June 9, 2019
This morning the French said they would regards it as Britain defaulting on a sovereign debt (HERE) "whose consequences are well known".
There is something illogical about this whole argument anyway. How come a trade deal is so valuable
that it's worth £39 billion to the EU, but virtually nothing to us? We can
just walk away without one. Yet their economy is
seven times as big as ours. This is one of the 'magic beans' that
Amber Rudd has talked about - we might have 'bought' America with them
but it's not something we can do with the EU nowadays.
Johnson is probably going to be the third Tory PM to go to Brussels, make empty threats and bang their head against a granite wall. He will return with nothing and to prepare for that eventuality according to The Sunday Times, he says:
"My duty will be to get our country ready for the very, very small possibility of coming out without a deal on WTO terms. It is only by being ready to deliver it that you will get the deal that we need.
"He said that planning for no deal was 'far advanced' with 'extensive plans already in place to mitigate the impacts for farmers' and 'for those who need just in time deliveries' such as far manufacturers. But he added, "People must be ready for the possibility of some disruption".
"He wants to "shed the old intellectual prison of the backstop arrangements" and send ministers rather than officials to play hardball in Brussels and prepare for no deal in the hope that shifts the dial in Brussels".
He believes planning is well advanced in government to handle no deal - and he could be right. But it isn't the government he needs to worry about, it's the private sector. How are the thousands of companies and individuals who trade with the EU directly or indirectly prepared? What about UK citizens working in Europe with qualifications gained in the UK? What about exporters of agricultural products? Or just in time supply chains? I don't believe a majority are prepared at all. Sir Ivan Rogers in his book: 9 lessons of Brexit, says no developed country has ever left a trade bloc before, let alone in a disorderly fashion, and let alone one that is much more than a trade bloc.
Rogers says: ".....we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations".
No deal will be instantly chaotic and some people will blame the EU, but many will point the finger at Johnson. MPs may try and stop him with a vote of confidence, precipitating a general election which he would definitely lose. So, the logical thing would be to delay or revoke. We will not be out on October 31st whatever he says now.
I quote Matthew Parris from his Times article last week:
"What’s it like in Downing Street? You and I cannot know, but over the years I have talked with a few former prime ministers and they all say the same. 'You can have no idea,' one once said to me, 'of the weight and complexity of what begins to hit you from the very first day.'
"Background briefings thud on to your desk or ping on to your screen in stupefying detail. Mastering them is essential. Nothing we know about Johnson suggests talent for the conscientious absorption of detail".
The prospect of success in Brussels is likely to make a snowball's chance in Hell look pretty good. No deal is not going to happen. The options are becoming seriously limited.
He believes planning is well advanced in government to handle no deal - and he could be right. But it isn't the government he needs to worry about, it's the private sector. How are the thousands of companies and individuals who trade with the EU directly or indirectly prepared? What about UK citizens working in Europe with qualifications gained in the UK? What about exporters of agricultural products? Or just in time supply chains? I don't believe a majority are prepared at all. Sir Ivan Rogers in his book: 9 lessons of Brexit, says no developed country has ever left a trade bloc before, let alone in a disorderly fashion, and let alone one that is much more than a trade bloc.
Rogers says: ".....we could expect disruption on a scale and of a length that no one has experienced in the developed world in the last couple of generations".
No deal will be instantly chaotic and some people will blame the EU, but many will point the finger at Johnson. MPs may try and stop him with a vote of confidence, precipitating a general election which he would definitely lose. So, the logical thing would be to delay or revoke. We will not be out on October 31st whatever he says now.
I quote Matthew Parris from his Times article last week:
"What’s it like in Downing Street? You and I cannot know, but over the years I have talked with a few former prime ministers and they all say the same. 'You can have no idea,' one once said to me, 'of the weight and complexity of what begins to hit you from the very first day.'
"Background briefings thud on to your desk or ping on to your screen in stupefying detail. Mastering them is essential. Nothing we know about Johnson suggests talent for the conscientious absorption of detail".
The prospect of success in Brussels is likely to make a snowball's chance in Hell look pretty good. No deal is not going to happen. The options are becoming seriously limited.
We are beginning to see the strange death of British exceptionalism. Killed accidentally by a Tory party that has fed and nurtured it for years and years.
