Jonathan Lis has written a piece for The Guardian: Johnson and Hunt's wild promises don't matter. No deal will never happen. The headline caught my attention because it coincides with my own thinking. But Mr Lis, who writes a very good blog (Politics.co.uk), believes no deal won't happen because parliament will stop it and he suggests some ways that might be possible. I wouldn't disagree with him that MPs could step in and try to block it. However, I don't think that will be needed. The prime minister is never going to do it.
The Lis theory is based on the idea that the PM - whoever it is - is crazy enough to trash the nation and their political careers and legacy by tumbling out of the EU without an agreement.
I don't subscribe to this at all. Even if either candidate harboured such suicidal thoughts now (and that is a very big IF) once safely ensconced in Downing Street and surrounded by sober and serious people they will quickly realise it is not a credible option. No, the whole thing is designed to threaten the EU with dire consequences as a way of getting a deal which is better than the one we've got - or at least no worse. The EU are wise to all of it and have never put any credence on our leaving without a deal.
John Mills, another mad Brexiteer, the CEO of a company called JML, explains the whole charade more clearly at Brexit Central HERE. Mills is appealing to Labour MPs to accept the possibility of a no deal Brexit and support the next government's proposed tougher handling of the present impasse. He says:
"There is, however, a possible way out of this bind. Suppose Parliament was prepared to accept No Deal – not as its preferred outcome, but as a lever to get the EU back to the negotiating table. The UK would need to be prepared to go through with this threat but the objective would not be to allow No Deal to happen. Instead, it would be to use a threat of it materialising to get the EU to modify its stance sufficiently to get an acceptable deal through Parliament".
This is like sitting round the poker table and shouting to your mate sitting behind you that you only have a pair of deuces but you're going to bluff your opponent into folding his four aces. Brexiteers and Mr Mills think they are whispering to each other sotto voce so the other side can't hear. At the outset of the fiasco, we were told the government couldn't reveal it's plan for fear of giving something away. We now know they didn't want Brussels to know they didn't actually have a plan at all!
This is like sitting round the poker table and shouting to your mate sitting behind you that you only have a pair of deuces but you're going to bluff your opponent into folding his four aces. Brexiteers and Mr Mills think they are whispering to each other sotto voce so the other side can't hear. At the outset of the fiasco, we were told the government couldn't reveal it's plan for fear of giving something away. We now know they didn't want Brussels to know they didn't actually have a plan at all!
Now they do have a plan - to threaten no deal as a way of getting a better one - they are all shouting it from the rooftops. It's madness.
Two things occurred yesterday to show how ludicrous it all is. Firstly, it was announced that Theresa May would visit Scotland tomorrow in what will probably be her last trip as PM. In her speech she is expected to warn that a no deal Brexit risks the break up of the United Kingdom.
Then, at Treasury questions in the House of Commons. Phillip Hammond, The Chancellor (and soon to be back bencher was asked a question by Chuka Umunna (HERE Column 1053):
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal and the Chancellor is still in his post, does he envisage there being enough fiscal headroom following the spending review to give the top 10% of earners a tax cut worth more than £9 billion? Surely that is wholly unjustified.
Mr Hammond
I think the hon. Gentleman has sketched a highly unlikely scenario, but I can answer his question. We have built up about £26 billion or £27 billion of fiscal headroom, and the purpose of that headroom is precisely to protect the UK economy from the immediate effects of a possible no-deal exit. I have no doubt whatsoever that in the event of a no-deal exit we will need all that money and more to respond to the immediate impacts of the consequent disruption, which will mean that no money will be available for longer-term tax cuts or spending increases.
Let me go further: the Government’s analysis suggests that in the event of a disruptive no-deal exit there would be a hit to the Exchequer of about £90 billion, and that will also have to be factored into future spending and tax decisions.
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal and the Chancellor is still in his post, does he envisage there being enough fiscal headroom following the spending review to give the top 10% of earners a tax cut worth more than £9 billion? Surely that is wholly unjustified.
Mr Hammond
I think the hon. Gentleman has sketched a highly unlikely scenario, but I can answer his question. We have built up about £26 billion or £27 billion of fiscal headroom, and the purpose of that headroom is precisely to protect the UK economy from the immediate effects of a possible no-deal exit. I have no doubt whatsoever that in the event of a no-deal exit we will need all that money and more to respond to the immediate impacts of the consequent disruption, which will mean that no money will be available for longer-term tax cuts or spending increases.
Let me go further: the Government’s analysis suggests that in the event of a disruptive no-deal exit there would be a hit to the Exchequer of about £90 billion, and that will also have to be factored into future spending and tax decisions.
Meanwhile Jeremy Hunt has told Rober Peston a no deal Brexit could be as bad as the 2008 crash:
'No-deal Brexit could be as bad as 2008 financial crisis' says Tory leadership contender Jeremy Hunt tells me - ITV News https://t.co/PPLUawbPID— Robert Peston (@Peston) July 2, 2019
In the bizarre world of Brexit, the two Conservative and Unionist candidates are both advocating policies that are about as far as you can get from being either conservative or unionist.
The key word is: advocating. They will never do it.
Both Hunt and Johnson were in Norther Ireland yesterday and were asked by Sky News about their specific plans to resolve the border problem. Needless to say, neither man offered any - HERE. All we got was vague solutions. It's clear they have no ideas and probably don't intend to offer any even when they become PM. They look like they're both past caring whether anybody believes a word they say.
The Johnson camp seem unhappiest with rumours of tensions building because their man keeps making promises and commitments which later have to be denied. Recently, The Telegraph reported he was planning to cut the size of the cabinet by half - since denied. It is all reminiscent of the Leave campaign, promise anything to get as many people on side as possible and worry later. It would not surprise me to see his campaign team explode before the voting takes place.
Both Hunt and Johnson were in Norther Ireland yesterday and were asked by Sky News about their specific plans to resolve the border problem. Needless to say, neither man offered any - HERE. All we got was vague solutions. It's clear they have no ideas and probably don't intend to offer any even when they become PM. They look like they're both past caring whether anybody believes a word they say.
The Johnson camp seem unhappiest with rumours of tensions building because their man keeps making promises and commitments which later have to be denied. Recently, The Telegraph reported he was planning to cut the size of the cabinet by half - since denied. It is all reminiscent of the Leave campaign, promise anything to get as many people on side as possible and worry later. It would not surprise me to see his campaign team explode before the voting takes place.
