Integrated Review: Will it last the course?

“Planned strategy was not his strong card. He preferred to work by intuition and impulse.” 

• Alan Brooke on Winston Churchill, 1944

 A sound strategy must combine a realistic analysis of the external environment, a coherent statement of policy to engage with those challenges and an understanding of the resources needed to deliver it. The Integrated Review aspires to be the most significant statement of post-Cold War British grand strategy. Does it, at least on paper, succeed?  

Its assessment of the external environment centres on the growing power of China, systemic competition between states and non-state actors, technological change and what it calls ‘transnational challenges’ such as climate changes, global health and terrorism.  

However, the sweep and scale of the challenges the Review identifies means that - in policy terms – it must try to do a lot of things at once. This includes making a case for the UK to be even more active in distant regions, when it is being battered by a pandemic at home. Critics of the Government think it’s a deluded return to the pre-Suez mindset, though it’s defenders say greater engagement with the Indo-Pacific region is unavoidable in the modern context. 

Though the United States remains the most important ally and partner for the UK, it is no longer the global hegemon and the growing importance and influence of China pervades the strategy. The Review also recognises that the UK is and remains a European nation, but places far more emphasis on bilateral relations with Member States while, perhaps predictably and pettily, overlooking the role of the EU as an institutional player on our doorstep with geopolitical aspirations of its own. There is growing evidence of the UK’s enthusiasm for the CANZUK nexus (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK) as an alliance for pressing common areas of interest, including the treatment of Hong Kong by China. Critics of this approach will note that the UK already had strong forums to work with these nations (such as the Commonwealth and the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence partnership), and relations with these nations is not a realistic substitute for its previous membership of the EU.  

Hawkishness towards China has grown significantly on the Conservative backbenches in recent months, and indeed throughout British politics. While the PM’s statement criticised China for its policies towards Hong Kong and the Uighurs, its geopolitical heft means that non-engagement is not a realistic option for the Government. The PM does not share the strident Sino-scepticism of many of his MPs and the UK will continue to engage with China on economic matters and to tackle climate change. China is dubbed a ‘strategic competitor’ which is quite a long way from the hostile state that many Conservatives consider it to be. Nonetheless, the days of the UK talking of a ‘Golden Era’ in relations with China, with former Chancellor George Osborne seeking to significantly strengthen ties between both countries, seem to be well and truly over. 

The Indo-Pacific tilt – or at least this most recent Indo-Pacific tilt - is also driven at least partly by China. The unspoken but obvious intention of this policy is to build links with democratic countries who can be counterweights to Chinese influence in the region including India, Australia and South Korea. The PM will visit India, the UK has applied to become an ASEAN partner has already applied to join the CPTPP. HMS Queen Elizabeth will visit the region on her first operational voyage. This approach mirrors that of the Biden Administration, which is seeking to use its ‘Quad’ alliance (of the US, India, Japan and Australia) to counter Beijing’s influence. 

There is a strong sense that the UK’s security and defence apparatus is set up for fighting the last war even though, seemingly out of nowhere, an increase in the cap to the UK's nuclear arsenal is announced. A major thread of the strategy is the ‘new frontiers’ of cyber, AI and space – areas where Russia and China are seen to excel. The UK has observed with growing interest how new forms of ‘hybrid’ combat are increasingly defining 21st Century warfare - from the devastating use by Turkey of drones in last year’s Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, to the increasing use of cyber techniques to spread disinformation by Russia. The central proposition of this Review is that reducing traditional ‘hard power’ capabilities of conventional warfare - in favour of new, niche tech capabilities - will provide the UK with the agile strengths to fight tomorrow’s wars. 

It is also worth noting that this strategy aims to use the defence budget not just as a means of prosecuting modern cyber warfare, but also as a tool to support regional investment and productivity and even to help bind the Union together. At a time when the Government is said to be going cold on the idea of an industrial strategy, the phrase is used is broad daylight. 

This leads us to the vexed question of resources - the means by which this strategy will be delivered. Labour has astutely picked up on the areas where the Government’s rhetoric has not matched its actions. The defence budget is perennially overcommitted, due to overspend on procurement programmes, and the FCO and aid budget have both been cut. If new capabilities are to be developed, others will need to be scaled-back, possibly very significantly. This Review does not spell those cuts out at all, but cuts to the army are widely being reported and will be detailed in a forthcoming Defence Command Paper. This is perhaps the biggest question of the Review. How much of the conventional armed forces will be left if resources are deployed into these other areas?  

However, there are questions of style as well as substance. This document is a serious attempt to frame the UK’s role in the world in a systematic way. However, its delivery will involve years of patient application, forging of new alliances in the East and facing down formidable vested interests at home. However, Boris Johnson is without doubt a politician who relies – like his hero Churchill – on gut and guile. Will a planned strategy survive Boris Johnson’s impulses or the anti-China instincts of the Tory benches? Will the next reshuffle see a change of personnel in the key Departments? Will it prove to be flexible enough to accommodate the next unexpected event? And most importantly of all, can the resources be matched to the ambition? A strategic approach from the Government is to be applauded. However, it must now be delivered – and for all his formidable political talents, planned strategy is not Mr Johnson’s strong card.  

Moments of Clarity

If you think the Government's position on Brexit sucks, wait until you see Jeremy Corbyn's. 

Theresa May’s deftly crafted Mansion House speech appears to have achieved something unlikely – unite the Conservative party behind a common position on a future relationship with the EU. In the PM’s model there is something for nearly everyone on her benches: an independent trade policy for Brexiteers on the one hand, and a clear acknowledgement that the UK will inevitably have to stay closely aligned to EU rules in some areas in future for the Gradualists. For both sides there was a sensible admonishment: you can’t all get what you want. The PM’s clear statement of the trade-offs entailed in Brexit was as refreshing as it was overdue: the UK will be sovereign and have the ability to diverge from the EU if it chooses, but this will inevitably come at the cost of market access. 

This outbreak of peace – if it lasts – is a coup for Theresa May. In some respects, it doesn’t matter if the EU thinks the UK is cherry picking; at least the PM can now focus on negotiating with the EU and not her own party. At the same time, the Mansion House speech appears to have reduced, if not eliminated, the chances of Jeremy Corbyn winning a major Parliamentary victory on a customs union with the EU.

I welcome PM @theresa_may speech. Clarity about #UK leaving Single Market and Customs Union & recognition of trade-offs will inform #EUCO guidelines re: future FTA.

— Michel Barnier (@MichelBarnier) March 2, 2018

Perhaps now it's one negotiation, not two

Has the PM's Mansion House speech undermined Corbyn’s ability to do the Government over on a customs union?

As a reminder, Jeremy Corbyn recently clarified Labour’s Brexit position in his Coventry speech. Labour will, like the Government, eschew Single Market Membership and will seek a bespoke future relationship which is not based on an existing model.

However, in a couple of crucial areas Labour’s policy is different: it will seek a form of customs union with the EU, where the UK external tariffs will be set by the EU. This is in direct opposition to the Government’s requirement that the UK must have an independent trade policy. But while he plans to stick close on customs, Mr Corbyn would not sign up to EU rules on state aid and opt-out on competition measures. Again, this is in sharp contrast to the Government, which says it will make binding commitments on EU state aid and competition rules.

As a matter of policy, Corbyn’s position on a customs union has a mixed impact. One benefit of pursuing such a policy would be tariff free access for goods in both directions. However, the EU’s draft negotiating mandate seeks tariff free access for goods despite the Government’s insistence on an independent trade policy. This is no surprise – the EU has a massive trade surplus in goods with the UK so, they would, wouldn’t they? There are other benefits of such a union, however. Chief amongst these is a reduced requirement for border infrastructure and checks – something that would simplify fraught talks over the Irish border considerably. However, in seeking a formal deal on a customs union Mr Corbyn would also give up the UK’s ability to pursue an independent trade policy by effectively delegating trade policy to the European Commission. For the Brexiteers, this is selling out on the whole point of Brexit.  

Following this shift on policy, Labour is expected to back an amendment to the Customs Bill tabled by pro-European Conservatives rebels - led by Anna Soubry - which calls on the Government to pursue a customs union with the EU. This means the UK’s position may end up being determined by Parliament rather than the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is a matter of arithmetic – perhaps fewer than 20 Conservative rebels might be required for the Government to lose. This challenging vote has been pushed back until some undetermined point later this year.

Mr Corbyn must be attracted by the politics of such a move – by coming in behind Tory rebels proposing a customs union amendment to the Customs Bill, he could inflict a very painful defeat on the Government and, at a stroke, re-open a Conservative feud which the Mansion House speech appears to have calmed.

However, the approach taken in Mrs May’s speech appears to have led to a reassessment by at least some of the Tory Mutineers about following through on their amendment. Speaking at a Cicero event this week, Nicky Morgan suggested that customs union rebels were open to talking to the Government. To be clear, Mrs Morgan did not suggest they were backing down, but did praise Theresa May’s ‘excellent’ speech. That is a significant de-escalation of tensions.  

Undermining their own PM both at home and in Brussels and blowing up a delicate consensus on a way forward in the Conservative party may not be enough to put off Anna Soubry or Ken Clarke, but it may peel off enough rebels to deny Corbyn his victory. It is possible the Government could persuade the rebels to withdraw their amendment entirely. Recent reports that Labour has held discussions with Michel Barnier on the matter of the customs union in a bid to undermine Theresa May’s negotiating position, adds further pressure for would-be rebels to re-consider their position. For there is one thing that all Conservatives can agree on: they don’t want to do anything that moves Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell closer to power.

Very welcome tone from @theresa_may of realism, compromise, recognition that we are in negotiation with EU & can't ignore some hard facts as well as a desire to unite the nation & build an enduring economic partnership with the EU. EU cannot say now it doesn't know what UK wants

— Nicky Morgan MP (@NickyMorgan01) March 2, 2018

Not very mutinous...

Beware Corbyn bearing gifts: Labour’s Brexit positioning is arguably now less compromising than that of the Conservatives

The business sector – for understandable reasons - was eager to welcome Mr Corbyn’s embrace of a customs union. It appeared evidence that the soothing pragmatism of Labour remainers such as Keir Starmer was winning out.  However, the customs union move is, if not a red herring, only part of the story. Corbyn's policy shift was delivered in a speech which had elements which should be deeply concerning to businesses who seek close ties with the EU after Brexit. As much as many in business may not like the Conservative insistence on an independent trade policy if it comes at the cost of a frictionless border with the EU, Mr Corbyn’s stance on other issues may severely constrain the breadth of any future trade deal.

Jeremy Corbyn’s rejection of EU state aid provisions as part of any future trade deal should set alarm bells ringing. The rejection of such basic level playing field provisions must surely severely limit the prospect for a comprehensive trade deal under a Labour government. It is a strong signal that Labour would seek to provide support to domestic industry that is currently prohibited under EU rules – which would lead to complaints from EU firms that they were being unfairly disadvantaged. It is difficult to imagine Mr Corbyn offering to make ‘binding commitments’ on competition policy either, given competition policy is essentially a construct of the neo-liberal market economy system he disavows. Labour policies on nationalisation may place European investors at risk of being compelled to sell assets at below market price. If you were looking at a starting point for a deep and comprehensive trade partnership, this would not be it.

Further, John McDonnell told the BCC conference on 8th March that a Labour government would not seek a special deal for financial services, saying to do so would prioritise bankers over other parts of the economy.

Labour’s position may offer a customs union. But this offers scant comfort if there is no ability to agree a broad deal on goods, and no interest from Labour in seeking a special deal on the part of the economy – financial services - which provides a huge slug of the UK’s surplus.

Be careful what you wish for...

I have heard some in business say that perhaps Corbyn and no Brexit or Corbyn and a soft Brexit is preferable to the Conservatives and a hard Brexit. However, this is a pretty flimsy straw man. For Mr Corbyn is not offering an alternative to Brexit. Quite the opposite. His Coventry speech doubles-down on his personal commitment to Brexit and signals that he wants to take the UK away from the open markets model which is at the core of the Single Market. 

Equally, I fear that the Tory mutineers, as sympathetic as I am to their aims, could achieve a Pyrrhic victory. They may get their customs union, but at the cost of handing Corbyn the opportunity - in his own way - to take the country further from the EU Single Market than even the most fundamentalist of the Tory Brexiteers.

They have some thinking to do.  

Brex-o-meter update: Irish border issue softens UK position

*** Download the freshly revised detailed Brex-o-meter analysis here ***

Intriguingly, the UK Government has agreed that in the ‘absence of agreed solutions in a future UK/EU deal, the United Kingdom will maintain ‘full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union’ insofar as they protect North/South relations’. We see this as a pragmatic softening in position, as it envisages close alignment as a backstop past even a transitional period. The UK’s precise approach to a future relationship has not yet been agreed by Cabinet but may be set out in a speech by the PM in February.

A rebel amendment to the Withdrawal Bill means MPs will be able to send ministers back to the negotiating table if they don’t approve the final deal. The Bill shortly moves to the Lords where it is expected to be amended further. Our Brexit Momentum indicator moves towards a softening also, as the Government’s thin majority means it may have to compromise on future pieces of legislation, especially where Parliament believes the Government is trying use executive powers to side-step it.

An embrace of Single Market Membership by Jeremy Corbyn would be potentially game-changing in the debate. For now, Labour’s position remains pro- and anti-Brexit, and pro- and anti-Single Market membership, with no sense that Mr Corbyn is getting off the fence. 

Discussions now move to Phase 2. The Government is about to enter a six-week long discussion/scrap about what model it is seeking for a future relationship. So expect to see new terms such as 'top down' and 'bottom up' approach and 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' model enter the Brexicon. One of the major discussions will be whether the UK is wedded to an independent trade policy or not - remaining in some form of customs union with the EU would solve a lot of practical issues (including on the Irish border). However, in doing so, the UK also loses the autonomy to strike new deals - a major selling point of Brexit. 

2017: A year of Firings and Fury in the Conservative Government

The sheer volume of senior personnel that have been chewed through by the Trump Presidency (including, of course, Mr S Bannon) has been stunning. But if you think back, there has been a very British version of this chaos. Inspired by Michael Wolff, I have compiled a gazetteer of gloom – a list of the people of the checked out, chucked out and flounced out during a brutal year in British politics. 

JANUARY

Sir Ivan Rogers: The Mandarin’s resignation

We were only three days into 2017 before Sir Ivan Rogers quit as UK’s ambo to the EU. In a characteristically well-crafted memo to staff he said: ‘I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them’. This remark was thought to be directed to at senior Brexiteers, and probably the PM and her top advisers.

Impact: Rogers’ resignation caused huge fuss. Anxious Remainers saw ominous signs of a purge in the Civil Service, while Brexiteers cheered his departure. When Sir Tim Barrow, a respected Foreign Office stalwart, was appointed as his replacement, things calmed down and life went on. The loss of Rogers’ expertise and experience was regrettable though it wasn't really tenable for him to continue in post. It was an early indication of the serious tensions building between Theresa May’s government and the civil service machine…

APRIL

In April, Theresa May called a snap election to be held in June…

Osborne  out

Thank you politics for continually reminding me that maddest stuff is not in my head but actually happening.

— Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) March 17, 2017

Having recently taken on the editorship of the Evening Standard (it doesn’t get any less weird writing that…) there was no way the former Chancellor could campaign and hold down his editorship. So he quit Parliament.   

Impact: Osbo’s departure has allowed him to pursue his feud with Theresa May from the pages of the Standard with alacrity. This will not be helpful for Tories fighting local elections in London in May. Some speculation that the former Chancellor wants to edit the Daily Mail in due course, using it as a vehicle to reclaim the centre ground in politics. 

Katie Perrior: The Spinner’s departure

Katie Perrior, No 10 Director of Comms, left saying that she didn’t want to work another election campaign. But many people didn’t buy it. There were growing reports of conflict in the No 10 team and it wasn’t clear whether she had jumped or been pushed.

Impact: At the time, fairly minimal. However, there was a sting in the tail to Perrior’s departure...

JUNE

…the election didn’t go well. Tory acrimony following June’s underperformance was almost worthy of the Trump White House.

Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy: The joint resignations

The knives quickly came out for the PM’s Chiefs of Staff Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Free of the constraints of working in Downing Street, Perrior wrote an excoriating attack on the duo in The Times, accusing them of being arrogant and abrasive. Slighted ministers briefed heavily against the joint chiefs. Timothy and Hill, described widely as Theresa May’s brains, resigned on June 10.

Impact: This was the Government close to its nadir. Gavin Barwell, who lost his seat in the election, took the Chief of Staff role. Nick Timothy became a newspaper columnist, Fiona Hill seems to have left politics entirely. The change in personnel at Number 10 since has almost certainly allowed space for a more gradualist approach to Brexit, and a less confrontational approach to relations between No 10 and the rest of Government.

David Jones and George Bridges: The Brexit Exits

David Jones was fired as a Brexit minister. David Davis was reportedly unaware of this and the reasons for his firing were never made clear. Another Brexit minister, Lord Bridges, quit after a bust-up with the PM. Half the ministers in the Brexit Department gone. No one really remembers this now.  

Impact: The DExEU ministers were quickly replaced (by Steve Baker and Baroness Anelay), but questions about the ability of the department to deal with the Brexit deluge persist.   

SEPTEMBER

Boris Johnson: The non-resignation

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has at several moments been close to resigning according to his friends, most notably in the lead-up to the PM’s crucial Florence speech in September, where he felt he had not been consulted. He did not resign.

Impact: Boris remains in position.

NOVEMBER

November was a month of total mayhem…

Sir Michael Fallon: The Weinstein effect (1)

Michael Fallon’s resignation as Defence Secretary in the midst of the Westminster harassment scandal in October left unanswered questions about precisely what he had done that had fallen short of the standards expected. A weekly gossip email had some scurrilous suggestions which are not appropriate for a family newsletter like this. Fallon, an old pro, resigned quickly and without fuss – rapidly drawing a line under the story.  

Impact: The loss of one of Cabinet’s most experienced figures – he had served under Thatcher - should have made a bigger impact than it did. However, his departure was soon driven out of the news by some good old Blue on Blue fire. Chief Whip Gavin Williamson got Fallon’s coveted role, leading to much sniping from colleagues about his lack of experience.
 

Priti Patel: The Flight Radar firing

The higher you climb, the further you fall

Within a week, International Development Secretary Priti Patel was busted for not being entirely straight with the PM about the nature of a protocol-busting visit she had made to Israel. Summoned back from an official visit in Africa by the PM to be fired, political anoraks worked out which Kenya Airways flight from Nairobi to London she would be on.  Thousands tracked the Boeing 787s progress on the Flight Radar app.

Flight Radar’s blog said:  The most unexpectedly popular flight this year was Kenya Airways flight KQ100 from Nairobi to London on 8 November…The flight was viewed 250,000 times as she was summoned back to the UK.

Impact: Patel was replaced by fellow Brexiteer Penny Mordaunt. Patel has used her new freedom to press for a hard Brexit from the outside. She may fancy herself a future leadership contender. 

David Davis: Another non-resignation.

Another periodic non-resignation has been that of David Davis. At various times he has reportedly been ‘frustrated’ and considering stepping down because he has been sidelined or sidestepped.

Impact: He remains in post and enjoys the PM’s full support: a Downing Street spox said cheekily that Davis had the role for ‘as long as he wanted it’.

DECEMBER

Damian Green: The Weinstein effect (2)

PM: I have accepted the resignation I asked you to make...

A cloud had hung over Damian Green, the de facto Deputy Prime Minister, since it was announced he was under investigation by the Cabinet Office head of ethics, Sue Gray over accusations over his conduct towards Kate Maltby, a Tory activist and journalist. Then a couple of retired Police officers said that they had found inappropriate images on his Parliamentary computer, excavating a story dating back some years.

Green’s account of what he had known and when in relation to some of the accusations that had been made were found to be ‘inaccurate and misleading’. This cost him his job. 

Impact: The back story – retired coppers with a score to settle, dodgy images on a workplace computer, text messages about corsetry and the such made this the most multi-layered resignation of the year. It will complicate tricky relations between the Government and the police. The PM clearly regrets having lost an ally, especially under such circumstances. The vacancy has not been filled, giving the PM an opportunity to exercise her powers of patronage without having to upset a very delicately balanced and Cabinet.

Lord Adonis: most predictable resignation

2017 ended as it began with a resignation over Brexit.  Labour peer Lord Adonis quit as Head of the National Infrastructure Commission, apparently after a experiencing a moment of clarity in a church in the Austrian Alps.  An honourable mention for the venom of his resignation letter which said ‘Brexit is a populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump’. He accused Theresa May of leading a UKIP-inspired government. He has vowed to fight the Withdrawal Bill tooth and nail in the Lords. Amongst the most strident of the Brexit reversalists, he seems not to have a problem with the abject lack of clarity of his own party’s position on Brexit.  

Impact: Lord Adonis now has more time to spend with his Twitter account.

What a cheap, silly tweet. You are supposed to be running the NHS, not being a junior Tory press officer! https://t.co/nfBSGnKTcv

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) January 5, 2018

This was just a list from the top of my head…Are there any I’ve missed? 

Florence and May's Sheen

This posting went to my email list yesterday. To subscribe send me a message on
Twitter, Linkedin or by email

Theresa May has had a good run the last few days. Will it extend to the weekend?

I think the PM is having a good spell (cue newsflash saying she’s just resigned). Let’s just look at some real actual things TM’s done over the last few days:

• The trip to Canada was positive, with Justin Trudeau suggesting that the UK would flip into a bilateral deal based on CETA after Brexit. May did a solid for Northern Ireland and Canada by calling President Trump on behalf of Canadian plane maker Bombardier, which employs a ton of people in Belfast but is threatened by a nasty trade dispute with Boeing;
• The PM’s tireless (and still under-recognised) efforts on Modern Slavery were rightly recognised in the Evening Standard as George Osborne appeared to show contrition for his remarks about wanting May chopped up in his freezer;
• In co-ordination with close European allies, she is sticking it to the online giants for their failure to take on the scourge of online extremism; and
• She appears to be taking control of Brexit by moving DExEU Permanent Secretary, Olly Robbins, to No 10.

Of course, the biggest test is Friday, where we will know if she has managed to outline an approach in Florence which simultaneously satisfies cabinet (which meets in advance on Thursday), her party and provides enough red meat to move negotiations with the EU27 forward. It’s a tough ask.

I've updated my Brex-o-meter - this is the post-Boris, pre-Florence edition. https://t.co/5Fkvtyq3lb #Brexit @CiceroGlobal @CiceroElections pic.twitter.com/IwLC3Q42c5

— John Rowland (@rowlandreport) September 19, 2017

*** I have just updated the Brex-o-meter and I will probably have to do so again at the end of the week after Theresa May’s Florence speech.
Check out the latest version here: https://cicero-group.com/introducing-the-cicero-brex-o-meter-what-are-the-chances-for-each-brexit-deal/  ***

A pivotal moment is coming

It does look like we are facing another defining moment in the Brexit Saga. Theresa May is fond of using set piece speeches to make a big statement. It allows her a level of control over delivery which suits her style. And for all of Theresa May’s shortcomings, it can’t be said that her big speeches have not made an impact. The Nasty Party, Police Federation and Lancaster House speeches have been amongst the most significant British political speeches in (relatively) recent times.  In retrospect, Lancaster House has stood up pretty well – setting out a destination that even now the fractious, divided and weakened Conservative party still buys into. Indeed, the Lancaster House approach may in time, be credited as the one thing that prevented the Conservative party from collapsing into civil war.   

But it’s time for May to go further, as there are one or two matters that need to be cleared up PDQ. The questions the Prime Minister might tackle on Friday:

• How much dosh is the UK willing to pay on the way out? Nothing? A bit? A lot? An absolute pile? FT reports said the Germans have been told eur 20bn – which shows enough leg to move the discussion forward, but without making a big commitment on future liabilities. That can will be kicked down the road.
• Does May signal an intention to formally withdraw from the EEA under Article 127? The Government has said it will not be part of the Single Market after Brexit. However, Article 127, the process under which a country leaves the EEA has not been triggered - the Government says the Article 50 process will do the job. That view is contested by some Remainers who think that it must be done separately with the agreement of Parliament (hoping that Parliament will vote it down thereby keeping us in the EEA). Will May make it crystal clear that the UK government intends to press the button on Article 127, challenging opponents to sue the Government in the High Court in a re-run of the Article 50 case? That might calm the Brexiteers down who smell a conspiracy to keep us half-in half-out.
• What kind of transition will the UK seek? Will it last 8 minutes? Two years? Three years? Will it be based on mirroring EU responsibilities and obligations or something else much more limited? I think we or on for at least two years with a model that looks quite a lot like what we have now – UK complies with EU rules and standards, pays in and has same levels of market access. The Brexiteers appear to have given a bit of ground on transition in order to get to the final destination.
• What model is the UK seeking in its future relationship? Somewhat based on the EEA, with the UK effectively implementing EU rules on a sector-by-sector basis? Or more like a modern trade deal such as CETA, with a bunch of side deals on things like security and law enforcement? This appears to be the new battle line. George Osborne’s former adviser Rupert Harrison says there probably isn’t much of a difference in practical terms. I agree to some extent. But the question of ongoing payments to the EU is critical to the Brexiteers - after transition, payments would be intolerable for them. I think the exit, when it comes, will, by definition, be a pretty hard one because May will not compromise on her red lines and so the EU cannot give us what we want. For me the question really is whether the apparatus of the British state will be ready to handle this fundamental change.

If May doesn’t meaningfully address at least some of these points (especially the money) and just recapitulates Lancaster House, it will make it clear the Government won’t move the conversation forward in time for the October Council Summit. That will make business and markets freak out and the papers will go barmy. Yet the more detail she gives, the bigger the risk of alienating a wing of her party and perhaps pushes Bo Jo towards resignation just ahead of Tory Conference. It’s a Catch 22 and the way she handles it will be a serious test of her mettle and authority.

The Brexiteers are turning up the volume

Everything emanating from the Government over the last few weeks suggests that the Gradualist approach to Brexit is winning out – this is a compromise that appears to have been struck amongst the players in Cabinet. No one is thrilled with it – and Bo Jo and maybe Gove oppose it - but that’s precisely the point. It’s a compromise.  This seeks a longish ‘status quo’ transition, allows for some form of budget contribution to the EU (certainly in the interim, if not beyond) and presumably a future relationship in which the UK largely mirrors EU standards and regulations without formally being in the Single Market or EUCU. We would however, have control over our immigration policy and there would be no direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. This is the Hammond model, and purist Brexiteers - both in Parliament and in the grass roots – view it with deep suspicion if not antipathy.  

Sensing the tide has been running against them, radical Brexiteers like Dominic Cummings, Nigel Lawson and Mervyn King have begun to distance themselves from what they now think will become a train wreck (one for which they will never accept any responsibility, by the way). They think negotiations are likely to end in failure variously because: the civil service isn’t up to it; the EU will never agree to what the UK wants; and even if they did, the UK would be subservient to the EU which would defeat the point of Brexit. Or to put it more bluntly they are saying May, Hammond, Davis, Heywood and Robbins are screwing it all up and we need to GTFO of the EU quick and hard. It’s little surprise Mervyn King says the UK government should be planning for ‘no deal’.

Bo-rexit: £350 million a week redux

This is a good point to segue into Boris’ 4,200 word opus setting out what Snoop Mogg described as a ‘romantic’ vision of Brexit (romantic is one word for it). I thought it was a stark reminder of the colossal gulf between the outrageous claims and naïve idealism of arch-Brexiteers and the increasingly dismal, declinist defeatism of the Remoaner brigade.

Predictably, critics of Brexit have again fallen into the trap of arguing about the veracity of the £350 million-a-week-for-the-NHS-claim instead of engaging with the thrust of what Boris is saying. He’s making a blindingly simple point: he wants UK taxes spent on UK public services, not the Brussels circus carting back and forth to Strasbourg, or MEPs and Brussels officials who are paid bucket loads more than our own MPs and Civil Servants, or sending the EU money so it can be sent back to the UK. That is a remarkably simple message and it works. The public don’t care if it’s £200 million or £350 million, the principle is the same. So I was a bit surprised to see both Dave Norgrove and Robert Chote writing letters moaning about the £350 million claim. It’s over. Move on.  

Whither Boris?

Explaining the last few weeks in British politics pic.twitter.com/4zlOOgPW1x

— Rupert Harrison (@rbrharrison) September 18, 2017

The Johnson Telegraph piece was drippingly disloyal and Ken Clarke is surely right in saying that he would have been sacked in other circumstances. But on a personal level I can understand Boris wanting to express a view on something he helped bring about, but in which he has been subsequently marginalised. This move positions him for the future if the Gradualist approach goes wrong and takes down its architects with it. But it comes with the attendant risk that he is seen by the party as a destabilising force at a time when stability is needed.

Will he resign? Will he stay? Will he back Florence, or disown it? If he flounces out, will it backfire? We’ll find out soon enough. But while the Boris situation makes good political drama, it is symptomatic of something bigger: the battle for the heart and soul of Brexit. Henry Newman of Open Europe puts it very succinctly: ‘[Boris’ piece] was above all a rejection (at least implicitly) of the way in which the Government has treated Brexit as a bomb that needs defusing, rather than as a mandate for change, and an opportunity to remake the nation for the better’. This is an argument that is bigger than individuals. It’s about two world views which have not yet been, and probably will not be, reconciled.

Theresa May has to try to chart a course through this. She recognised very quickly and acutely that Brexit was a mandate for change but has struggled to deliver it because she doesn’t have a majority and she doesn’t have much money. This makes her vulnerable. But who else can lead the Conservative party right now? And which Tory MP wants to increase the chance of a General Election? This is her strength.

Things can move quickly and by the middle of next week two extreme storylines are equally possible: May is in deep trouble and faces an imminent leadership challenge. Or she has seen off the threat and has stamped her authority. I wouldn’t like to make a bold call, but if I had to put a fiver on it, I think it’s the latter.

Blast from the Past

A reminder that it’s not just George Osborne who can be mean…this is from November 2016.

That will do for now. See you on the other side.

The Brex-o-meter has swung!

*** This blog post was sent to my email list before being posted here. To get on the list, DM me on twitter @rowlandreport or connect with me on LinkedIn ***

The Brex-o-meter has moved. To check it out click here.

The Government has compromised on its pre-election position and the ‘Official Position’ needle is heading softwards (softbound, squidgewise?).  ‘Ah!’ You might ask, ‘how can you discern the official position when members of the government are fighting like ferrets in a sack?’

Good question!  

I will explain the reasons for taking the view that I do. First, David Davis is the Brexit negotiator, not Boris Johnson or Liam Fox. Noises-off from this or that cabinet minister make good summer copy, but it’s what the person in the room in Brussels says that counts (irrespective of whether they have any briefing notes in front of them).

But David, you're the Brexit Secretary and you haven't even got any notes for the Brexit negotiations. Guilty, get a new rule book. pic.twitter.com/Lke7OKZxe6

— Jack McKenna (@_jackmckenna) July 17, 2017

Second, it’s helpful to split things into the BE (before election) and AE (after election) eras when making an assessment of where we are. The difference is stark, not just in terms of ‘optics’ (yeah, I used that term), but increasingly in matters of policy.

The Before Election era – the best Brexit is a quick Brexit

The BE era was hard, uncompromising and (from a City perspective) semi-detached from reality. The strong language on immigration – from Cameroon Remainer Amber Rudd no less - at last year’s Tory conference was jarring to liberal Tories, the business community and to hypersensitive European observers and media alike. The Chancellor was slapped down for suggesting that the path to Brexit may be neither quick nor straightforward. The subsequent departure of Sir Ivan Rogers as Ambassador to the EU in early 2017 showed that Number 10 was not interested in the views of a long-standing EU insider telling them ad nauseam that Brexit would be a long and tough exercise. The business community was kept at arms’ length and, if we are honest, went to ground – still reeling from June 23rd. There wasn’t a great deal of detail on what the UK was seeking but it created a mood. Theresa May’s approach, when finally articulated in some detail in her Lancaster House speech back in January, was unequivocally one of a quick break. The ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ soundbite encapsulated this period. Either give us a deal in short order, or we will walk away.

The After Election era – the new gradualism

The result on 8th June collapsed everything the Government thought it knew about the world and handed the architects of the Lancaster House position their P45s while empowering the opponents of what my boss Iain Anderson calls a ‘c**p Brexit’. Yet, until Theresa May went on her summer holiday, there had been little evidence that fundamentals of the Lancaster House position had been abandoned in substance. To be clear, even now there is no suggestion that the final destination - leaving the Single Market and EUCU - is up for discussion at all (though some of the more suspicious Brexiteers might think that a long transition is a Trojan Horse for Brexit reversal).

Nevertheless, the government has clearly softened its approach on citizens’ rights, immigration more broadly, the length and nature of transition and – it appears – is preparing to give ground on budget contributions as well. As an aside, my guess is we’ll arrive at a bill of a nice round 50 billion euro, not that it will ever be presented as such. This can, in large part, be put down to the way business-friendly, pragmatic Remainers (Philip Hammond, Amber Rudd) and like-minded Leavers (David Davis) appear to agree that the journey should be given as much thought as the destination. About time, because there wasn’t much evidence of this in the previous 12 months.

This view appears to recognise that a multi-year, fudge-tastic transitional period is necessary because at the very least the UK simply cannot build the institutions, systems and processes required to become a fully independent nation quickly enough. Moreover, a relatively smooth transition will protect the UK from an unnecessarily large economic shock. It is also the essential precursor to the bigger prize – which is agreeing decent framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. That cannot happen quickly – and it won’t happen in an atmosphere of acrimony and recrimination - so it’s useful to secure more time in which to agree this.  

There appears to have been some resistance to this from some of the more ideological Brexiteers (Liam Fox and, it seems, Boris Johnson). They seek a quicker, less tapered exit. But I sense that this is a battle which is being won by the gradualists.

A note on Labour

Labour’s position on Brexit remains deeply ambivalent. At an event hosted at Cicero last week, Keir Starmer called for tariff-free trade with the EU and a close relationship and said ‘no options should be off the table’. Except, presumably membership of the single market (which his boss has recently ruled out in quite clear terms and enforced a three-line whip against). If anyone can explain to me in precise terms where Labour’s position actually differs from the Government’s at the moment, I shall be pleased to hear from you.  The best piece of writing on this is from CER’s Simon Tilford, on the Limits to Labours Constructive Ambiguity over Brexit.

I hope you all have a restful and relatively Brexit-free summer.

Behold the Brex-o-meter

A friend reminded me that it is an auspicious day in the history of Brexit. Yes it's 365 days since the Rally for Leadsom. It is one of those moments that encapsulates just how weird British politics has become since 23rd June last year. 

HAPPY #Rally4Leadsom DAY, EVERYONE! pic.twitter.com/9tV4i7R61S

— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) July 7, 2017

I thought I would mark the occasion with a missive for you all.

My last posting in March (tempus fugit) mooted the possibility of an early election. When Theresa May pulled the trigger on an early election in late April, my colleague got a pay out on his bet (a 7/1 shot) and I felt pretty pleased with myself for having set out well in advance the arguments for going to the country, even though I didn't think she would go through with it. By Jove how she must regret that decision now.   

If May had got the expected fifty-plus majority, the Brexit die would have been cast. The victory would have been a mandate for hard and relatively uncompromising approach set out in the Lancaster House speech, with the attendant risk that the two sides would end up so far apart that the UK would walk away with no deal at all. George Osborne was correct in his analysis that this was a Brexit that put sovereignty and immigration control above the economy. 

While it pains me to see the Conservative party in such a dilly of a pickle, I can't say I dislike what this disastrous election campaign has given us from a Brexit perspective: a proper stooshie about the kind of Brexit we should seek. This is the row that we should have had in the UK before Article 50 was triggered. But that discussion was entirely shut down. Instead we are having that discussion as the negotiations begin. This is not ideal, but it is better than no debate at all.

So all bets are off now. The political environment is so unpredictable that anything can happen. Frankly, I think I wouldn't even rule out the UK remaining inside the EU (unlikely as it is). For this very reason I have developed the Brex-o-meter to track where the UK position is and what could happen next. 

You can check it out by clicking below:

Click on the image to see the Brex-o-meter

After NICs: are we heading for another General Election?

I would like to revisit the Budget, now that the Government has climbed down from the changes to NICs announced in the Budget last week. At the time I said that the decision to tackle NICs would face stiff opposition and certainly was not the path of least resistance. Boy, was that an understatement.

But when you take away all the huffing and puffing, what really happened was a well-reasoned 60p-a-week tax rise to partly cover the costs of benefits that the self-employed now enjoy has been ditched in the face of opposition from the Tory backbenches and some foaming at the mouth from the right-wing press. This was no sneaky stealth tax. It was not a tax raid. It was done in broad daylight. At a time when we have a crunch in public service funding and Brexit mayhem looming, the Chancellor couldn’t make even a modest - and honest - change to the tax code to make it a bit fairer.  That says rather a lot.

It says a lot about the extent to which the Government is hemmed in by the 2015 manifesto, which ruled out a whole raft of tax rises as a trap for Labour. It says a lot about how vulnerable the Government is to even modest backbench rebellion. And it shows that right-wing press is happy to savage the government, even at the moment it stands on the edge of delivering what it wanted above all else: Brexit. So, is this one of those tactical retreats governments inevitably make due to a political miscalculation? Or does it hint at something deeper?

Which leads me to the clickbaity title of my article. There has been a debate in my office for months about the logic of Theresa May going to the country to secure a solid and more biddable majority. I have consistently held the view that this is not going to happen because May wouldn’t want the fuss and disruption of an election if she can avoid it. It doesn’t seem to be her style. But one of my colleagues who is steeped in the ways of Westminster Toryism has got money riding on a 2017 election.

Does he have a point? The fallout from Philip Hammond’s relatively restrained budget has pitilessly exposed the contradiction at the heart of this government: its poll lead is imperious (19 points or thereabouts) but its ability to transact business in Parliament is marginal. Labour aren’t at the races so the opposition is almost entirely internal. What a deeply unsatisfactory position to be in. There are only a couple of responses to this problem: go out and get a stonking majority (and say bai to Osbo’s manifesto!) or else press on and de-risk the policy agenda to within an inch of its life so that you can’t be held hostage by restive backbenchers. 

Hammond's letter to MPs. Who will rid me of this troublesome manifesto? 

You only have to look at the growing pile of cans stacking up at the end of the road to see that the current strategy appears to be the latter. Heathrow, housing and adult social care all need serious attention but will need long and careful consensus building. There are also new cans which are unkickable, because they relate to Brexit. Most notable of these is the Great Repeal Bill but could also include another half or dozen Bills on issues such as immigration. Unlike the Article 50 Bill, the Government will struggle to get its text through untouched. Then there’s a second Scottish Independence Referendum in the offing, problems in Northern Ireland.

There’s a wildcard too: the rather difficult situation regarding Conservative election expenses in marginal seats. The sitting MP in Thanet South was interviewed by police under caution yesterday about whether election expenses were misreported in his campaign against Nigel Farage. A decision will soon have to be taken as to whether to take the matter further. Seventeen police forces are investigating similar alleged infractions of campaign funding rules according to the BBC. In the worst case, this could result in a number of 2015 results being voided and by-elections being run. Could that be a catalyst for a new General Election to kill the matter? Of all the slow burners, this is the one I am watching the most.   

And a footnote on the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. I am not sure how much this is a serious barrier to an early election. The Government could just repeal it. 

So we have a situation which can be summarised as follows: there won’t be an early election unless there is. I know that’s the kind of insight you come here for. You are welcome.

The Spring Budget was so Philip Hammond

Here's my take on the Budget yesterday, as published in Cicero Group's special report....

An exciting cover and a snazzy name

When Philip Hammond spoke of the Brexit rollercoaster at Conservative Conference in October, he probably didn’t anticipate that the economic outlook would be so benign for his Spring Budget. Growth is higher than expected, employment is robust, borrowing is lower. Project Fear it ain’t.

While this gives Hammond a bit of space, he has been careful not to allow the positive message to slide into hubris. For a start, he is all too aware that OBR forecasts are highly sensitive to growth projections and growth forecasts are notoriously fickle. If UK consumers stop borrowing to fund consumption as they have been, or the housing market stutters, then the fiscal situation could deteriorate quite quickly leaving him in a difficult spot in the autumn.

Brexit looms over all, but was barely mentioned either in the statement or the Red Book. That’s because this was a Budget that focussed primarily on domestic challenges. The most important of these is addressing the funding crisis in social care. Hammond has managed to find some money to help provide relief to hard-pressed local authorities, but a long-term solution must be found. Regardless of the solution the Government chooses, this is possibly the most important long-term social policy discussion since the Turner Commission reforms to the pension system. The Government will publish a Green Paper on funding later this year, but in an emphatic and pointed pledge, the death tax will not be an option up for consideration.

This budget was so Philip Hammond

George Osborne’s love of the ‘big reveal’ was the cause of a lot of heartburn both inside Government and outside. Conversely, Philip Hammond has taken much of the drama out of fiscal events, though he has an unexpected knack for delivering a good joke. Those who have seen him speak often will recognise the wry sense of humour increasingly finding its expression at the despatch box. He delivered some zingers today, mostly at the expense of Labour. It’s clear he’s enjoying himself.

Though deficit reduction remains the sine qua non of fiscal policy, there is also the emergence of a distinct ‘Hammond-ian’ approach in which difficult reforms will be made if they tackle unfairness in the system. Take also the bold statement that the Government would not shrink from raising taxes if needed – and that these changes would be clearly spelt out.

For example, a long section of Hammond’s statement carefully addressed the imbalance in taxation between self-employed and employed people. Seemingly breaking a Conservative manifesto commitment – and ditching reforms proposed by George Osborne – he has tweaked national insurance rates so that the self-employed will pay more from April 2018. This will face stiff opposition in some quarters, and it’s almost inconceivable that Osborne would have chosen a similar route; his visible wince at the announcement was telling. Hammond is also reducing the taxfree allowance on dividends to try to close a similar gap in taxation for owner-directors and company employees. This is probably the first step in a longer-term equalisation of tax treatment so that individuals cannot use their employment status to arbitrage the tax system. It will make the system fairer, but it was certainly not the path of least resistance.

Productivity

If the Chancellor is enthusiastic about one thing, it’s productivity and particularly the role of technology in boosting it. He has long said that UK workers are less productive than those in France, Germany and Italy. The UK’s competitiveness is derived from the fact that the British simply work longer hours to produce the same amount. This is not a new problem, but Hammond is unusual in the fact that he has made it a signature priority. The two pillars of Hammond’s productivity offensive are training and infrastructure. There is a package of measures today to try to address this including the introduction of new T-Levels, £270m of funding for cutting-edge R&D and 1,000 new PhD places and fellowships in STEM subjects. There is also some cash for 5G, fibre roll-out and the alleviation of road congestion.

The future

A low-key Spring Statement to update on the public finances and an Autumn Budget is the new fiscal rhythm to which Whitehall will march. Hammond has again showed he has no intention of making policy on behalf of other members of the Cabinet. In any case, the Chancellor has a number of long-term challenges to deal with, of which Brexit is only one. Brexit is important, but for most people making sure their loved ones are looked after in their later years – or seen by a doctor when they are ill – is a more immediate and visceral issue. All politics is local, and once the public’s attention has moved on from Brexit (as it will) it will come back to what they see every day: public services.

Article 50 Bill: My interview with IGTV

Some more punditry for IGTV...

So, let’s talk about Sir Ivan’s resignation…

For Remainers* trying to manage post-referendum stress disorder, Sir Ivan Rogers’ resignation was the worst possible start to 2017. It pressed all the buttons. Paraphrasing the late, great AA Gill, it was the Full English of Remainer neurosis…

* A term which appears to be outliving its usefulness post-referendum, but for which no replacement has yet been found. Please send suggestions if you have them.

1.       We’ve had enough of the experts

Ivan Rogers was undoubtedly an expert on the EU. Retired Treasury boss Sir Nick Macpherson was very eager to remind us of that with this extraordinary Twitter outburst:

Ivan Rogers huge loss. Can't understand wilful&total destruction of EU expertise, with Cunliffe,Ellam&Scholar also out of loop.#amateurism

— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) January 3, 2017

But the currency of experts has become devalued. It is conventional wisdom in the age of Brexit and Trump that gut instinct and heart are more powerful weapons than numerical models and rational analysis. For Mandarins, who pride themselves on dealing in the latter, this appears to be the cause of some considerable insecurity. And, given recent events, perhaps a little bit of introspection and humility wouldn’t go amiss.  

Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist gamely admitted yesterday that the Bank failed to forecast accurately the short-term impacts of the vote to Leave because it could neither predict the dynamic impacts of rate cuts and QE and – crucially –  failed to anticipate that consumers would just shrug their shoulders and carry on racking up debt on the plastic regardless (though he is sticking to his longer term forecast). More damaging is the charge of Cambridge academics (experts themselves, I guess) that the economic analysis presented by experts at HM Treasury before the referendum was badly wanting, and in fact probably biased by the political demands of ministers. Ooof.      

The devaluation of ‘expertise’ strikes fear into the heart of Remainers, because most experts still think Brexit is a dumb idea. As acceptance grows that Brexit means Brexit, experts are making the fall-back argument that if we must do this damn silly thing, we should at least not do it a damn silly way. In other words, soft is better than hard. Or smooth is better than chaotic. Or whatever. But Remainers sense that with every expert that quits, with every forecast that is proven wrong, with every ‘impartial’ analysis that is shown to be biased, the Brexiteers take a bit more ground in this epic struggle. This may be imagined more than real, but that doesn’t make it any less unsettling.

2.       You can’t handle the post-truth

If Sir Ivan dropped a smoke grenade in reception on the way out of the door it was this: I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power.

For Sir Ivan the truth, based on many years of experience, is that Brexit can either be done smoothly or quickly, but it can’t be both given the challenges of getting agreement with the EU27. Brexiteers, including the Foreign Secretary, simply do not accept this truth. They think that this is no more than the dismal caution of a Brussels insider with no stomach for the fight ahead.

Remainers take this as evidence that Brexiteers are inhabitants of a Putinesque world in which nothing is true and everything is possible. As such, Remainers haven’t really put a lot of effort into understanding where Brexiteers are coming from, preferring to become indignant about how they just don’t get how the world works.

But maybe it’s the Brexiteers who do get it. Who can say who will turn out to be right and who is wrong? Perhaps taking a huge short position on the EU is the smart bet. Maybe we can get a good deal in short order. Maybe freedom of movement won’t turn out to be as non-negotiable as Angela Merkel makes out. Perhaps this nation has been too eager to take the path of least resistance. Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. Who knows?

 ‘What is truth?’ asked Pilate of Jesus two thousand years ago. It’s still an apt question today. You can’t objectively disprove the claims of Brexiteers, no matter how outlandish they may seem, because as we have seen in recent months no one can predict the future. This drives Remainers nuts.

 3.       DeBa’athification of the Civil Service

The Sir Ivan story has also fuelled Remainer suspicions there’s a purge going on in Whitehall, which it must be said were allayed somewhat by the rapid appointment of career FCO man Sir Tim Barrow as the new Perm Rep.  But how many more officials who refuse to get with the Brexit programme decide to spend more time with their DB pensions in the coming months? Governor Mark Carney – who was Rees-Mogged last year - has sort of done so, but in a less dramatic fashion by extending his tenure by the absolute minimum possible. In the longer term is this generation of top officials on its way out, possibly to be replaced by ayounger generation who may see this as the professional challenge of a lifetime?

Incidentally, CGP Grey has put another excellent video together on Rules for Rulers which is unbelievably insightful on holding and exercising power. Watch it.

 So there you have it. Three ways in which I think this story was the convergence of the worst fears of Remainers. Do you agree with my outpourings? Please send positive feedback to me, negative feedback and SPAG corrections to donaldjtrump@greatagain.gov

PS… RIP George Michael

Sir Ivan timed his resignation for maximum impact in the early January lull. The funny thing is that if George Michael’s death had come at the same time as Sir Ivan’s resignation, we know what the lead item would have been – and it wouldn’t be a Mandarin with a low public profile known to be grumpy about Brexit retiring less than ten months before he was expected to go anyway. However, news abhors a vacuum. Like a can of expanding foam, Brexit stories quickly enlarge to fill all empty spaces. And indeed, I am writing about it too.

In the words of  Anthony Bourdain: irony sucks.

Miller has rattled Team Brexit more than I expected. Here’s why.

Assuming the Government loses in the Supreme Court...

Parliament will vote through Article 50 (probably in the form of a Bill) when the time comes. The vast majority of Parliamentary constituencies (as opposed to voters) voted to Leave so electoral logic dictates MPs will have to respect that. The March deadline for triggering Art 50 is somewhat arbitrary. So if the Government misses the 'deadline' by a few weeks because a piece of legislation of has to go through both houses, it will be embarrassing but ultimately no more than that. Brexit will still mean Brexit.

Yet on news of the High Court decision, a number of prominent Brexiters took to the air to express their outrage that Gina Miller and the judges were seeking to overturn the settled, definitive will of the people. (For reference, I have illustrated scientifically in the chart below the will of the British people as of June 23).

Why has the Miller result rattled Team Brexit so much? I think the outrage about the court decision is a red herring which draws attention away from fundamental political problem the ruling presents for Brexiteers, namely that having won the referendum, they could be outmanoeuvred on the manner of Brexit. This fear is surely well grounded. For a start – at the risk of stating the bleedin’ obvious - the referendum didn’t say anything about the UK’s future relationship with the EU, so it remains an open question. And though the result was clear and should be respected, it can hardly be described as emphatic even on the very basic point about whether we should Leave.

At a practical level there is a further problem for Team Brexit, namely that even if they could persuade Theresa May to pursue a hard Brexit, she is in no position to steamroller this through Parliament without an election that gives her a bigger and more biddable majority. Unhelpfully for the Government, the ruling also shines a bright light on just how precarious the Parliamentary situation is: Mrs May inherits a slim majority and not one but two sets of Bastards to deal with (the Bremoaners and the Leave taleban). That's before you add in the opposition parties. This increases the Brexit fudge factor massively.   

So why is it the case that Parliamentary involvement makes a fudgey Brexit more likely? Well, while the country is divided straight down the middle and the government is also divided, Parliament as a body is not nearly so divided. Parliament backed Remain, and it did so overwhelmingly (perhaps by 3 to 1). If I remember correctly, more than half of Tory MPs backed Remain. Miller has rattled the Brexit purists because anything that shifts the balance of power back towards Parliament means a clean break with the EU is less likely. It’s not about high ideals, or the rule of law or sovereignty, it’s about arithmetic. And while the maths do stack up for Article 50 being triggered, it doesn’t stack up for a hard Brexit. That is a fact that will not change unless there is an election – which Theresa May has ruled out, I would wager the public doesn’t want, and the Conservative party isn’t ready for.

So, ultimately, the fury with which the judgement was greeted signals just how sensitive Brexit campaigners are to the possibility that the quick, clean Brexit which they hoped for will get bogged down in the Reamainy Parliamentary mire. It will be Brexit Nigel, but perhaps not as you know it.