When populists go to war: Russia’s failure in Ukraine

So Putin’s war in Ukraine doesn’t appear to be going according to plan. Rather than a swift race to victory, instead his army is getting bogged down in bitter street fighting. And they are facing increasingly bold counter attacks from the Ukrainian army. And rather than being greeted as liberators by the Ukrainians, instead he’s only succeeded in uniting the country against him (as well as the EU and NATO). It is the unfortunate consequences of what happens when the magical thinking of populist leaders meets the realities of war.

There’s an old saying, that arm chair generals talk about tactics, megalomaniacs obsess about war winning wonder weapons, while the real generals focus on old boring logistics (I think it was Eisenhower who said that one of the key war winning weapons of WW2 was the Deuce & a half truck or the Jerry can). Well I think we can tell which category Putin and his inner circle fall into. Russia’s logistics have been truly awful. On many occasions their tanks have run out of fuel and had to be abandoned (Russia being one of the world’s largest oil producers). Then towed away and stolen by irate Ukrainian farmers (I mean you are parking a tank in his field, count yourself lucky he didn’t sent the bull loose!). Short of food, Russian troops have been seen looting shops.

And Russian tanks have been proven vulnerable to Western made anti-tank missiles. Which shouldn’t be a huge surprise as the capabilities of such weapons (and the weaknesses in Russian armour) have been known about for sometime. Worryingly for the Russians, the Ukrainians have apparently been focusing on hitting softer targets like fuel truck convoys & APC’s, rather than tanks (they are destroying just enough each day to make the Russian tank crews cautious, but they aren’t the main focus…for now!). This battlefield attrition has meant they’ve started running out of trucks and been forced to use civilian dumper trucks or even mini-vans as troop transports (which are of course horribly vulnerable to incoming fire, meaning Russian casualty figures will only get worse).

Meanwhile in the sky’s, a month into the conflict and the Russians have yet to establish air superiority. With the Ukrainian air force still able to carry out drone attacks and the odd air strike against the Russian forces. And if you think things are bad now, some experts reckon the Russians will exhaust their battlefield logistics within another week or two. Meaning they will not be able to advance, nor resist Ukrainian counter attacks. And the spring thaw is now upon us, meaning the Rasputitsa (mud season) will start soon, limiting the ability of the Russian forces to advance….or even retreat!

But what about all these advanced weapons the Russians have been working on? Like hypersonic missiles, such as the ones Russia’s used a few weeks ago. Well there’s an element of semantics at play here. Hypersonic speeds refers to anything capable of going faster than mach 5. We’ve had regular ballistic missiles (or anti-ballistic missile interceptors), capable of those sorts of speeds since the 1950’s. Its nothing new.

Hypersonic weapons is generally meant to refer to either a scramjet powered weapon, or a gliding lifting body (skipping across the top of the atmosphere like a stone across a pond), which can manoeuvre and evade air defences. Although on this last point, while difficult to detect and guard against with existing missile defence systems, that would likely change very quickly (e.g. while they are difficult to detect on surface based radars, the amount of heat they generate makes them easily detectable by air or satellite infrared tracking systems).

The Kinzhal missile the Russians launched a few weeks back would be more accurately described as a air-launched ballistic missile. We’ve had weapons like that since the 1970’s. Interestingly such programmes never moved beyond the development stage for a variety of practical reasons. They are bigger, bulkier and more expensive than conventional cruise missiles (a B-52 could carry 4 air-launched ballistic missiles…or 24 cruise missiles with a similar range and payload). They also need air fields, which are impossible to hide and vulnerable to attack (missiles on trucks or in subs can be dispersed and hidden).

And if you think that’s bad, the Russians are also working on a variety of doomsday weapons, such as nuclear powered cruise missiles, or nuclear powered torpedoes. Similar weapons were looked into during the cold war but eventually abandoned, because even back then nobody was batsh*t nuts enough to go forward with such ridiculous projects.

Now it has to be said Russia has been working on some real hypersonic weapons. And some analysis suggests they might be ahead of the US (which should tell you how corrupt and inept the American Military industrial complex has become). However, this would be counter productive, as it will inevitably provoke a response from the NATO.

We’ve been here before. Back in the late 1950’s, the Soviet’s seemed to have taken a lead in the deployment of ICBM’s. Inevitably this “missile gap” got blown out of all proportion and NATO reacted by building a vast network of thousands of its own (often better) ICBM’s. Which ultimately played a role in both provoking the Cuban missile crisis (an attempt by the USSR to get back to something resembling parity with the west) and one of the reasons why the soviet’s blinked first. So all Putin is doing is provoking another arms race that he can’t win (as NATO has a vastly higher budget and larger production capacity) and will see Russia surrounded by vast numbers of hypersonic missiles.

The very fact Putin has pushed ahead with such boondoogles indicates the Kremlin either isn’t listening to its experts. Or the experts are too afraid to speak out. Its what I’d call the Aladeen effect, a reference to this scene from the movie the Dictator. If your boss is a dumb-ass tyrannical despot and he tells you he doesn’t want his missiles round at the top but pointy (so they can stick in the ground and go kaboom), well that’s what he’s going to get. Whether it works or not, or it is just a complete waste of time and money, that’s someone else’s problem. In short, if Russia had a free press and a congressional oversight committee, none of these weapon systems would have ever been funded.

Its also clear that Putin and his generals have started to believe their own propaganda. For example, the Russians have made various bold claims about having advanced APS defences (Active Protection System, capable of detecting an incoming AT rocket and shooting it down before it hits) to protect their tanks. Such systems are nothing new, the Israeli’s have been working on those for sometime. However, they have their limitations, notably as regards top attacks, swarm attacks (firing multiple missiles at a tank from different directions at once), kinetic energy projectiles (a big ass gun firing solid armour piercing rounds at very high velocities) or indeed low tech solutions such as IED’s or Molotov cocktails. Bottom line, a clever anti-tank team will find a way to get around such defences, while an experienced tank crew won’t let themselves get into a situation where they are vulnerable to such attacks.

However, the Russians have made bold claims about how their APS systems are so advanced they are immune to such attacks, even the AP rounds from NATO tanks. A claim many consider to be highly dubious and probably impractical. Well it will probably not come as a huge surprise to learn that one of the prototypes for this weapon system was recently found in a burning heap on the side of a road in Ukraine, with its turret blown off. While its not clear what killed it, a hit from an AT rocket seems probable.

Then there is the matter of corruption, which after all played a key role in America’s defeat in Afghanistan. If you are a Russian general and you’ve got a multi million rubble budget to maintain your trucks and buy fuel. Well you could do that…or you could spend half the money and put the rest in your pocket (I mean its not like we are going to go to war or anything). You bill Moscow for 1000 guns or missiles, but then only buy 200 and split the difference with the Oligarch selling you the weapons. Which makes it even harder for anyone to speak up. As now you aren’t just accusing your boss of being an idiot. But being a corrupt idiot who is picking the state’s pocket.

This is the inevitable end state when populists go to war, When their magical thinking based on misguided nationalist myths bumps into that most dangerous of enemies – reality. Because unfortunately reality has a strong bias towards the truth. And Russia’s ongoing problem are just another good example of this. Sure Putin can use his hold over the media to try and hide this reality, but its not going to go away. As some have commented, whatever his war plan was he’s basically already lost.

Now that said, Russia does have a very large and dangerous arsenal of weapons. And it would be all too easy to shift the goal posts. e.g. secure a big chunk of southern Ukraine, abandon the positions in the rest of the country and sell that back home as some sort of victory. Then ride out western sanctions and hope his ally Trump get’s back in next election and all will be forgiven.

Well if that’s the plan, its a crap plan. Capturing land and holding it are two very different things. Recall the Russians pretty much conquered Afghanistan within a few days. It was holding that land that proved to be the problem. In fact the Irish war of independence, or the troubles, are probably good examples of how things in Ukraine will pan out. And the more brutal the Russians are, the more brutal Ukrainian partisans will be to the Russians. And not just the Russian army. Attacks against civilian targets in Russia becomes a real possibility (recall the Ukrainian government doesn’t necessarily have control of all these groups and will have even less control during a prolonged guerrilla war).

And what if Trump doesn’t run (he could just die of old age….or get bumped off by the CIA!) or he losses (or he ends up in prison!). Or the military industrial complex makes him a better offer (they need another war to sell their wares), and he launches a bunch of proxy wars around the globe. On which point, Putin’s decision to call in favours from Syria or Chechnya might come back to haunt him, as he’s running down those forces, risking renewed conflict in those countries. He’s also been accused of sending in troops from ethnic minority communities and using them as cannon fodder, which I might add was another failing of the soviet’s in Afghanistan. And was one of the reasons a whole bunch of civil unrest kicked off not long after that conflict was over.

And what is likely to be the final end state? A stronger EU and NATO (the opposite of Putin’s goals) and even if Ukraine (or Finland) officially stay out of NATO, a significant military presence there right on his border. I hate to break to Putin, but you don’t have to be a NATO member for the US to station forces in your country. The US has hundreds of bases worldwide and the vast majority of them aren’t NATO members, or even formal allies of the US. Hell Japan is officially a neutral country with a pacifist constitution and they host a massive US military presence.

Then there’s these not so little things called “aircraft carriers”. The US and NATO have dozens of those. They could have several large battle groups in international waters, just off the Russian coast, doing doughnuts and there’s nothing the Russians can do about that. Plus Putin’s use of some fairly shady mercenaries (as in neo-nazi linked ones), gives the US a green light to do the same. They could send a large army of military contractors to Ukraine (employed by a firm in the Cayman Islands), arm them with some pretty dangerous weapons and legitimately claim to have no troops in the country.

So I’d suggest Putin adopts a different strategy. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Brexit – anatomy of an awful deal

So Boris got his brexit deal...by basically dithering and then conceding everything to the EU, because (surprise, surprise) usually in any trade deal the loser tends to be the smaller partner, particularly if they are in some sort of hurry to get a deal. Its worth noting that the EU offered an extension to the transition period due to covid and were open to the idea of drawing out the negotiations, so the artificial deadlines are entirely the fault of the UK side of the negotiations.

Now the Tories will claim its a great deal. And it is….if you are a Brussels bureaucrat! The deal mostly covers trade in goods, rather than services. This is a problem because the bulk of the UK’s trade balance with the EU is made up by services (quite simply put, they sell us cars, fine wines and food, the UK sells them banking, insurance and media services). So by largely focusing on goods, this creates a massive trade imbalance in the EU’s favour, to the tune of about £75 billion per year (or about £1.4 billion per week).

And there will still need to be some customs checks and inspections, as we’ve left the single market. While there doesn’t seem to have been much chaos so far, this is largely because companies stockpiled heavily beforehand, hauliers have largely shunned the channel ports (Ireland now has new ferry routes that bypass the UK altogether) and the UK is just waving through trucks until July (which is technically illegal under WTO rules and quite dangerous as who knows what those trucks are carrying).

So at some point we can assume we’ll start to see issues developing. This is particularly true if the UK diverges significantly from EU standards, as the deal allows tariffs to be imposed at this point, which means yet more paperwork and cost. A cost that will be borne by UK shoppers when they buy these goods and exporters when they pay someone to fill in all the extra paper work (estimated at £13 billion alone). And speaking of costs there also the cost of hiring all of these new custom’s agents, setting up new government agencies to replicate work done by the EU, not to mention the costs to businesses. All told, the cost to the UK of brexit is estimated to be in the region of +£200 billion….which is about than the UK contributed to the EU’s budget during the entire time it was a member!

And what about fish? While the UK gained some concessions, they are largely symbolic (it would have actually been cheaper to give every fisherman in the UK £1 million and stayed in at this rate). As it has been pointed out before, the bulk of the UK’s quota’s are held by a handful of very wealthy families. There aren’t enough fishermen in the UK to take advantage of increased quota’s anyway. Hence its likely that any increase will just be sold off by these wealthy families to European boats or they’ll bring in non-EU fishermen to do the fishing (who will most likely come from Africa, as that’s the logical place to go for experienced fishermen, can’t wait till the bigot brigade hear about this one!).

In fact, I’d wondered why the EU had tolerated the UK’s insane position on fishing and not simply ended talks and told the Tories to come back when they’d stopped smoking crack. It was a deliberate strategy. The longer Boris droned on about kippers, the less time allowed for talks on the issues the EU didn’t want to talk about (such as services). At the 11th hour, they knew they could just make some meaningless concession, get everything else they wanted and Boris and the brexiters would go off high fiving one another thinking they’d won a great victory, when in reality they got played.

In fact there is still some confusion. For example, my big question, can I drive on my Irish driving license? Up until a few days ago I was told not only that A) yes you can, but B) you can’t change your license to a UK license until its within the last 6 months (oh plus the Irish have said they won’t let UK drivers drive with a UK license in Ireland). The official position now appears to be “fu*ked if we know” we’re just the government. The Tories brexit checker, advertised as Check Change Go, is more a case of Check, Cry and then Go F&*k yourself.

So why did this awful deal go through? Why didn’t they abandon fish and focus on services? Well largely because brexit is now the state religion of the UK and such pragmatism would effectively amount to admitting the UK is worse out than in. Its all about optics. Imagine for example that the PM stuck to his guns, dragged out the talks for years (constantly extending the transition period as and when needed), threw the hauliers and fishermen under the bus and got a deal that was more favourable for the service sector and British exporters.

Now on paper that would be a much more favourable deal for the UK, but it would count to brexiters as a defeat. It would mean delaying brexit, which means Boris won’t survive as PM for long (remember what happened to Theresa May, even thought it meant the brexiters accepting a worst deal than she’d negotiated). And it would mean on the first day, big queues of lorries, sudden spikes in prices and shortages in supermarkets and lots of angry fishermen on the Thames screaming profanities. In the court of public opinion this would count as a defeat and it would expose the realities of brexit straight away.

On the other hand, this deal hides the consequences. The queuing of lorries will mostly be at lorry parks or truck yards across the country (as they won’t be able to depart and head for Kent without the right paperwork). It hides the unemployment to letters many thousands will be getting in the next few weeks. It gives fishermen enough of a forlorn hope not to protest. And ultimately it limits the economic impact till later, when it can be blamed on covid. And of course the Tories can rely on the right wing media to spin it in their favour and paper over the obvious cracks.

In short one could compare this brexit deal to the cladding on Grenfell Tower. Highly flammable and dangerous, but designed to paper over poverty. It makes the UK look good from the outside, even thought its turning the place into a death trap and will eventually go up in smoke.

2020 a year in review

I think if 2020 had a tag line it would have to be something along the lines of “…but then it got worse“. We shall have to hope things get better in 2021…although it ain’t looking great initially.

Plague Island

So the brexiters are now raging that the French, Dutch, Irish, et al have used their right as sovereign nations to close their borders (I thought you can’t do that if you are in the EU?)…in one direction…for a two days (supplies could still get into the UK, they just couldn’t leave by truck, unless the driver was tested). Or in other words a partial no deal brexit (but without tariffs or any checks). Surely the Brexiters should be celebrating, we’ll be riding around on unicorns and reaping the benefits of brexit a few weeks early.

Of course this new lockdown is largely the fault of the Tory government and its incompetent handling of covid. Their failure to get a handle on the crisis provided the virus with the breeding ground to mutate. They were warned that this new strain was circulated as early as the 14th of December (this is when a statement on the matter was first made, likely they knew about it sometime before then), yet they still planned to ignore medical advice and remove all lockdown rules for Christmas. Its not really a huge surprise European governments reacted as they did when they know the Bullingdon clown is in charge over here on plague Island.

And now medical experts are pleading for an extension to the brexit transition period, which if course is also being ignored, because, they’ve been ignoring the experts all along and look where that’s got them – 80,000 dead and counting. Plus, a brexit deal where the UK has conceded virtually everything (as has been the case with most of the trade deals the UK has struck, which generally leaves the UK worse off and a rule taker not a rule maker), oh and we’ve overpaid for the Covid vaccine because, surprise, surprise the EU can get it cheaper than we can (bulk discounts).

Something fishy going on

At least I suppose the French lockdown of the border has highlighted how dependant the UK is on trade with the EU. And how crucial it is that some sort of comprehensive deal is eventually put in place. Consider than on January the 1st it will be illegal for a truck driver to even carry a ham and cheese sandwich across the border without the necessary paperwork. And if that sounds overly bureaucratic, actually no, that’s quite normal at most international border crossings, where they often don’t allow the transfer of fruits or vegetables (e.g. the US allows travellers to bring cheeses across but not meats, tinned food, rice, fruits or vegetables). Some countries even have sniffer dogs to check passengers for any undeclared food items.

And oddly enough, given all the talk about fish, its UK fish products going into the EU that are on very short time scales and most vulnerable to tariffs. Several such companies in Scotland said they will have to likely send their lorries to a dump than wait for the Calais crossing to reopen. Keep in mind that any deal struck in the short term (and a skinny deal seems likely) will not include free trade of all goods and services, as well as equivalent standards, meaning checks are going to have to be carried out in 2021. It would require membership of the EU free trade area to eliminate the need for any checks at the border (and that would take several years to negotiate, not least because it would involve non-EU nations such as Norway and Iceland).

Post-brexit, trade of some products could simply be rendered uneconomic. Delaying delivery of fresh produce by even a single day means its going to be less attractive to wholesalers (who wants to buy two day old fish when freshly caught stuff is available) and some portion will have gone off by the time it arrives. Which on top of the tariffs (plus the fact the driver might not be able to do the run without going over his hours and having to stop) and the cost of filling in all of that paperwork, means its going to be much more expensive and there just won’t be as much available.  

So what’s the point in a no deal? Or a skinny deal? Its going to cost the country a fortune, far more than the UK has ever paid to the EU. All just to gain control of fishing rights (an industry worth 0.1% of GDP), which isn’t even going to benefit the fishing industry much, as it just means you can’t export your fish and end up bankrupting the fishing industry. And in all likelihood the French fishermen will blockade French ferry ports and gum up the works completely in January.

In any event, the problems with fishing are within the UK’s control and they always have been, to quote a section from a recent Guardian article:

But the greater injustice by far to our fishers is our own government’s allocation of quotas to large companies. Two-thirds of the UK’s quota of fish goes to just three multinationals ; boats under 10m long get just 4% though they account for 77% of fishers . A Greenpeace report found a quarter of Britain’s quota was owned by five families , all in the Sunday Times rich list…

….British “slipper skippers were allowed to put their feet up and live off the earnings from selling their quota to foreign companies. If concern for our small boat fishing fleet were really the impediment to a vital Brexit deal, the government should be getting tough on preventing this sell-off.

Panic buying…again!

Looks like I’m stuck at home for Christmas, I’m in self imposed isolation as I have a bit of cold (which I’m pretty sure now is just a cold, but better safe than sorry). I’ve gone a modest stockpile of food, as I planned ahead, just in case of something like this happening (I even have some Turkey!). But I’m guessing that there are hordes of people rushing off to panic buy loo roll and spaghetti again, because presumably they are planning to eat so much Spaghetti for Christmas dinner they worry they might sh*t themselves (jingle tills, jingle tills, panic all the way, oh what fun it is to fight in the aisles and dump stuff in my trolley sleight…I’ll stop now!).

I’ve discussed the issue of stockpiling for general emergencies (such as this) or for brexit before. And suffice to say, if you are rushing off to the supermarket now, you’ve left it way too late. Buying pasta and far more fresh food than you can ever hope to eat before it goes off is not only stupid but pretty selfish.

The solution is to treat it as an inventory management problem. Rather than assuming the supermarket will always have what you want at a reasonable price, have a small floating stock of the stuff you normally eat. That way you don’t have to panic buy and if you get stuck unexpectedly inside (as I am), it doesn’t matter you’ll have enough to cope (as is my situation right now..might you, I might run out of Irish whiskey and have to settle for only the Scottish stuff, but times are tough!).

But like I said this is going to be the problem with brexit after January, fresh food supplies will not be as reliable anymore, they will become more sporadic (one day they’ll be out of peppers, next day loads of them but no tomatoes) and prices will go up. There are alternatives, some fruit and veg are grown in the UK (just not nearly enough to go around, plus have you ever tasted English wine!). There is the option of tinned food or frozen vegetables, although they obviously aren’t as good as the fresh stuff (and frozen veg takes up room I your freezer which is not a forever machine).

How then do the supermarkets stop panic buying? Well I’d limit purchases to a maximum of 2 of any item and a maximum of 12 items total per person for a few weeks (anyone showing up at the tills with 13 items, gets refused service and told to come back tomorrow). There is as much a psychological aspect to the panic buying and its about curbing that behaviour. Cutting the number of items on sale (i.e. one or two brands of soap rather than a dozen) and make sure there is plenty of those items on the shelves (perhaps even closing until they can ensure this). If people see empty shelves one day, then some small number of items the next, the selfish ones will try to clean them out.

Who should be vaccinated first?

Is it just me, but I’ve noticed that those who are in the younger generation tend to be taking this whole crisis a bit more seriously, even thought they are less vulnerable to the disease. By contrast, it seems to be the baby boomers and the older generations who are throwing caution to the win, insisting on seeing family at Christmas, not wearing masks, or having their noses poking out of masks (I’m tempted to get a big dog and train him to bite any exposed noses he sees).

Which brings us to the issue of who should be vaccinated first. Well clearly health workers and those with vulnerable conditions yes. But after that the UK’s plan is to go largely by age. Which you could argue makes sense given they are more likely to die from the disease (and their aforementioned habit of ignoring the rules). But I’d argue that might not be the best solution.

It ignores the fact that certain ethnic groups are more vulnerable to covid. It will take over a year to vaccinate everybody and by then some may have lost their immunity (as the antibodies won’t linger forever) or a new strain may have emerged that the vaccine isn’t effective against. Instead, I’d argue in favour of ring fenced vaccinations around possible super-spreader events.

So that would mean prioritising vaccinations in schools, universities, hospitality employees, shopping staff,etc. This would limit the room for the virus to spread. It could still spread (as not everyone would be vaccinated), but much more slowly, giving more time for more people to get vaccinated and more time to develop new vaccines for emerging strains.

But inevitably, given that baby boomers actually bother to show up to the polls and vote, they will get vaccinated first. And lets be clear, that’s the main reason why its going by age. If young people have a problem with that, start voting and being political active, otherwise you can’t complain about being ignored and put at the back of the queue for everything.

UK is now a Chumocracy

Nigel Farage, when not shouting at the sea or founding far right political parties (anti lockdown or whatever is the flavour of the month), has also been involved recently in some dodgy scams. Given he can’t mooch off the EU anymore (well more precisely off European tax payer’s, remember that UK citizens paid for his lavish spending as well via their taxes) he’s clearly trying his hand at some grifting, given he knows there’s millions of brexiters who are as thick as mince and will believe anything he says.

Earlier this year he was promoting the sale of gold and silver as well as shilling for crypto, which would only make sense if you think the UK economy is going to so completely collapse after brexit and that the pound would become worthless (so not exactly on message here). However he’s now been appearing in internet adverts promoting a fairly dodgy sounding investment advice scam, not unlike the contrepreneur scams I mentioned in a prior post. Yes the person who is most responsible for brexit is a dodgy scam artist, so why are we we going ahead with brexit?

Well largely because of how the media in the UK works. Very little of what I’ve said above is being reported in the mainstream media. For much the same reasons they were slow to report on his extra marital affairs, nor that he applied for a German passport straight after the referendum.

By contrast anyone on the left makes the slightest mistake, they will do a 20 page exclusive and go on about it for weeks. But a right wing politician can be openly scamming people, or the Tories handing out billions in no bid contracts to their chums and it doesn’t get reported. In short, Brexit Britain is not a democracy, but a Chumocracy. And we have the nerve to call other countries corrupt.

Covid and its impact on elections

Equally, anyone thinking covid and the mess that’s to follow in January will derail the Tories (or Farage) think again. The media will develop a goldfish like memory of everything that’s happened this year. They will point to the growth in the economy (its likely by 2024, we’ll be into some sort of recovery, they’ll just highlight the growth, ignoring how much better it would have otherwise been without brexit or a better covid response). They’ll also play the race card of course (ignoring the fact that if there is a problem then now that’s entirely on them).

While labour stands a better chance now they’ve got a credible leader in charge, they are not guaranteed to win. This is why the ridiculous infighting now going on between the Corbyn brigade and Starmer needs to stop. The recent US election shows why. Biden only scraped in, despite the fact Trump is on course to have killed more American’s than the axis forces managed in WW2 (the US death toll is now 3000 per day, that’s a 9/11 or a pearl harbour every single day)…and he still got 47% of the vote.

The one major change will be a level of Darwinian evolution. In that more of the baby boomers and Trumpers will have joined anti-mask protests, got covid and died and thus will be unable to vote in 2024. And some will also die from natural causes between now and then given their more advanced age. Its this demographic shift that is going to be the killer for the right long term, hence why they are trying to pack the Supreme court or make brexit as difficult as possible to reverse.

It might not happen in 2024, but when it does happen, the left needs to keep their powder dry. As I’ve discussed before, I would not spare the rod once the boot is firmly on the other foot. The way to beat the right is to fight fire with fire.

Pardon my war crimes

Trump is going on a pardoning spree of his political allies and basically any yahoo who has vaguely right wing views, such as 4 security contractors who were convicted of war crimes in Iraq. This highlights why letting Trump go unpunished would be a huge mistake. This has to be grounds for charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

There’s also a very simple way to also nip this in the bud. Make it clear that anyone pardoned by Trump will be handed over for trial overseas. So these contractors will be shipped off to Iraq (after perhaps getting reassurances that they won’t be executed, just imprisoned for life). There are precedence’s where by an international court could try Trump and his allies in the Hague (which will be beyond the justification of any US presidential pardoning or Republican interference).

So he’ll simply be digging him and his allies into even deeper hot water by pardoning them. Which means people will quickly stop requesting pardons from him, or even start insulting him on twitter to make sure they don’t get pardoned!

Going out with a bang

So 2020 has been all round bad, but has it really been that bad? I mean its not like we’ve had anything really bad happen like a tsunami or a large volcano going off….well A) yes we have, Kilauea just erupted in Hawaii and B) there’s still several days to go, don’t tempt fate!

The real problem with brexit: ignorant and arrogant toff’s

So now we can see how, yet again, the brexiters have tied themselves up in various knots. By threatening to break international laws they’ve managed, within the space of a few weeks, to scupper any chances of a deal with the EU, piss off the Americans (and several other countries too, make it very unlikely they will get the trade deals they want, even if they drop the internal market bill), risk the break up of the UK (support for Scottish independence is now at 53-55%), provoke mass resignations among the government’s legal advisers (not exactly helpful at such a critical time), and risk the UK becoming the first country in history to effectively impose sanctions on itself.

Incidentally, if you ever want confirmation that a Tory policy is harmful, watch how they will shamelessly claim the opposite is true (war is peace and peace is war in Toryland). With Johnson preposterously selling the bill to his MP’s as vital to saving the union….by destroying it!

And all if this against the backdrop of a 2nd wave of Covid, where’s its quite clear the NHS will struggle to cope and the Tories have dropped the ball, promising a “worldbeating” testing system (of course anything the Tories claim is worldbeating usually means world beating levels of incompetence and cronyism), which doesn’t supply any tests and a tracing system that doesn’t do any tracing. And many of the same mistakes made before (where elderly patients with suspected covid where discharged and sent to care homes without being tested, to free up beds, leading to a massive spike in cases in care homes) are being repeated.

Some argue its all part of some clever plan cooked up by Dominc Cummings. I’d argue no, it simply a product of the upper class twits who run the Tory party. Many of them (Cummings included btw) were educated in posh boarding schools where children are essentially radicalised (not unlike similar institutions run by islamists). These schools enforce a particularly warped world view of British exceptionalism (rules are for other people, same as taxes) and the glories of empire, while glossing over certain details (such as all the massacres or repression that sustained that empire).

So for example, any fool would understand how much of a red flag breaking an international treaty would look to Europeans (given the past behaviour of fascist governments and the dangers in appeasing such behaviour). I mean how would the British feel if the Spanish decided to break international law in “ a limited way” by now imposing a blockade on Gibraltar (effectively starving the British out).

And the influence of the Irish American lobby is well known, has Johnson never seen a St Patrick’s day parade? And, while the republicans are being a bit more diplomatic about it than the democrats, the message is similar, stick to the GFA or no trade deal. Remember that what trade agreements the UK has currently has with the US will expire on January the 1st 2021, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. People seem to forget its not just the EU we’ll be trading on WTO terms with, but everyone else in the world, the Japan trade deal for example hasn’t yet been ratified by either country.

And of course the very fact they are going back on their own withdrawal agreement (the opposition did propose a more lengthy due diligence and tried to highlight the consequences, but they were ignored) indicates they didn’t understand what it is they were signing. The withdrawal agreement and the NI protocol were rejected by Teresa May, as she was worried it would be a price too great to pay for brexit (her plan was to pretend to support a hard brexit, then force through a softer brexit at the 11th hour under the threat of no deal). Its been obvious since the start of the brexit process you have to put a border somewhere (and a border across Ireland breaks the GFA) or what’s the point in brexit? This was always going to make a hard brexit very difficult if not impossible.

While a soft brexit would negate the need for a hard border, its unacceptable to brexiters as it would quickly expose the reality that they lied through their teeth during the referendum promising things that could never be delivered. It would mean being in the EU’s orbit, still bound by its rules, but with no say in how those rules are made. And still paying more or less what is currently paid into the EU’s coffers. And even this would be more economically damaging than staying in. As such it would probably be reversed pretty quickly once the Tories were out of power.

This is why they’ve been pushing for the hardest of hard brexits, as it allows they to defer having to accept certain unpleasant realities. But its doesn’t change anything, its an ostrich strategy. The brexiters principle enemy after all is reality (which has a remainer bias) and their accumulated body of lies.

Recall for example, that signing trade deals with other countries means you have to change your laws to account for that (as trade deals require common laws…you know like EU membership!). The Japanese trade deal will require changes to state aid rules, the US deal (if they were to get it) would mean changes to food standards and the selling off of the NHS. And establishing your own institutions to regulate these new rules is likely to cost the UK far more than it ever paid to the EU.

The only difference between these deals and EU membership is that by staying in the EU, the UK would save money, retain more of a say EU affairs and have more bargaining power abroad. But the Tories aren’t details people. They are as ignorant of these pesky facts as they are about NI. And besides they know they can rely on the right wing media to lie to the public and convince them that the chocolate ration is being increased from 30g to 20g.

Which is why I’d argue that under no circumstances should anyone go easy on the brexiters over this. If I were the EU I’d announce a no deal and make it clear to Johnson that if he wants a deal (the country is in no way ready he’ll have to come crawling to the table eventually), he’ll have to drop the internal market bill, pay some sort of fine (or accept some sort of political punishment, e.g., agreeing that the parliament act does not apply to any agreement signed with the EU, which means the lords can block bills like this indefinitely, oh and stop him appointing new lords as well), and then basically wait on the naughty step for a few weeks, before talks are allowed to resume. And if so much as one tabloid story comes out suggesting the government is being insincere, talks are suspended again, compensation is requested and further punishments applied and so on.

And the US should do the same. In fact I’d suggest both the US and the EU should quietly lean on other government’s (such as Japan) and let it be known that if they were to proceed with trade talks (or ratify any agreed deals into law) that this will be seen as an unfriendly act, which will result in political consequences (don’t come looking for favours if you get into a mess).

The Tories are spoil little brats, used to getting their way. They need to learn a lesson in respect and that their actions have consequences. If they chose to do so the hard way, well so be it.

More News

6095 days since mission accomplished and the US starts another war

Its being argued, ironically by some on the alt-left (the so-called anti-anti Trump left), that Trump isn’t so bad, Hilary would have been worse, after all he’s too incompetent to start any wars. Well that theory just got blown out of the water last week, with the assassination of a high ranking member of the Iranian government by Trump in Iraq. Too say this is going to lead to blow back is to put it mildly. Already the Iraqi parliament has voted to request all foreign troops leave the country.

Trump may be choosing to follow the standard play book of many US presidents, if in trouble at home, bomb somebody. However, the problem for Trump is that attacking almost any of the likely Trump targets comes with severe blowback and repercussions. And Iran has to be the worst of them all to target.

Firstly, the US and Iran were essentially allies in the war against ISIS (as well as America’s former allies the Kurds). The worse thing Iran could do is down tools and let it be known to ISIS (and the Kurdish militia in Turkey) that they have a free hand and suddenly all the work of the last few year is undone, bombs start going off and US servicemen start disappearing (yet he can’t attack the Iranians in retaliation as all the evidence will point to them not being involved). And that’s before Iran, or their allies (HAMAS, Hezbollah, etc.) start attacking US, western and Israeli interests around the world.

And the most likely target would be oil tankers passing through the straits of Hormuz. Indeed the mere threat of this is causing all sorts of problems for the global economy, both pushing up oil prices, while pulling down the value of oil companies, notably Saudi Aramco, which may not go down well with one of Trump’s key allies in the region.

Oh, but if they attack the US I’ll bomb them says Trump. Ya, that’s kind of the Iranian plan! The Iranians have acquired a number of advanced weapon systems recently from Russia, most notably the S-300 air defence system (known to NATO as the SA-12). The US has the military capability to overwhelm these defences, but now without taking losses. In other words, some US aircraft will be shot down, US pilots will end up in Iranian custody, provoking a damaging hostage crisis in an election year (assuming they don’t get lynched by an angry mob before the Iranians can arrest them, footage of which will of course appear on social media).

Worse still, given that much of this new hardware was acquired from the Russians relatively recently, its reasonable to assume that Russian military personnel and/or contractors will be on site. Its also well known that China and Iran are co-operating on a number of industrial projects, as well as some military cooperation. Meaning there will be some Chinese citizens (including potentially some military personnel) in Iran. If any of them get killed in a US bombing campaign (which will of course be an illegal act under international law), then events could escalate quite quickly. There’s a good chance of retaliation from them in some way.

This could be either economic measures (such as a mass sell off of US bonds), or military (as in an attack against a US ally, Estonia, Kuwait or Taiwan and basically giving the US an embarrassing bloody nose)…or they could just release a certain pee tape. Either way, it just shows how events could very quickly spiral out of control.

And where was the UK in all of this? Well nowhere, Trump didn’t even give the UK a heads up. The UK was left to meekly cheer from the sidelines, even thought its quite possible they might be the target of Iranian (or Russian) retaliation. In fact, UK warships are having to be rushed into action to protect UK oil tankers. As one newspaper puts it, the UK post-brexit has gone from being America’s poodle to being its lapdog. That’s taking control alright!

Paradise lost

Meanwhile bush fires rage out of control in Australia, in no small part due to climate change. And one of the towns destroyed happened to be called Eden. Paradise has literally been lost to climate change. And least we forget, the current Australian government does contain more than a few climate sceptics, most notably the Australian PM himself, who once even once took a lump of coal into parliament to complain about “coal-phobia”.

Does this mean people have woken up to climate change? Ya and in other news a leopard has changed its spots. No, the Australian PM has refused to answer any such questions and the media instead has focused on dealing with the immediate problems caused by the fire, or the short term factors that led to them starting. I mean who could know that plants will burn when they get extremely dry. And who could’ve anticipated that Australians might have barbecues around Christmas time.

Like the soviet union after Chernobyl exploded, the climate change deniers will stick to the party line. Climate change can’t cause bush fires, you didn’t see burning kangaroos, take him away he’s delusional, its only 3.6 Roentgens (which is technobabble I know, but its become something of a meme now), not great, but not terrible.

For the same reasons, conservatives are utterly incapable of accepting the reality of climate change. Because much as Chernobyl exposed how rotten and dysfunctional the soviet system was, climate change would mean deniers having to accept the need for urgent action. Which given the atmosphere is a global commons, would mean international co-operation and government intervention….which means putting the coal companies who bankroll their campaigns out of business.

Of course, much as I warned in a post a few years ago, the downside to all of this is that the politicians themselves end up taking the blame. And quite rightly the Aussie PM has found himself being heckled as a result of these bushfires. And this should come as a warning to all right wing politicians. Ignore climate change and you’ll end up in a scenario where you will be completely out of your depth. The public will throw their support behind your most extreme opponents on either the left (Extinction rebellion types) or the extremists on the right (who will blame climate change on migrants, foreigners and poor people).

The assassination of Jess Philips by the coward Jeremy Corbyn

Speaking of ideologue’s who can’t handle the truth, much as I predicted, any opponents to the golden child, who’ll succeed Corbyn and lead labour to the socialist workers paradise, will be vilified and condemned, regardless of their suitability for high office, nor how left wing they are. Rebecca Long Bailey is the chosen one, endorsed by the supreme soviet Corbyn’s advisers (you know, the ones who’ve led labour to historic defeat after defeat).

And sure enough, Jess Philips announces she’s throwing her hat in the ring, mentions the possibility of maybe labour maybe campaigning to rejoin the EU at some point, post-brexit (the one thing Corbyn absolutely doesn’t want), and the labour/momentum blogs come alive with negative messages against her.

Too be clear, I’m kind of neutral on who should be the next labour leader. My guess is that either Scotland will be a separate country, or I’ll likely be back in Ireland, or somewhere else in the EU (taking advantage of the privileges being an EU citizen grants me!) by the time who is the leader of the labour party becomes a relevant issue. But yes, Jess Philips strikes me as one of a number of potential candidates who could reverse labour’s fortunes. And not because she’s anti-Corbyn (she’s actually fairly left wing in truth), but because she’s from a working class background, she is able to connect with working class people, she’s shown herself quite capable of taking on the Tories and (unlike Corbyn) she had a proper job before becoming a politician. But yes, there are others in labour who fit this bill as well (just nobody who Corbyn is backing!).

However, as the opposition to her should show, this is not what the Corbyn faction want. A sensible politician who will oppose the Tories and might actually win an election, hold a 2nd referendum and re-join the EU? Don’t be crazy! We want someone who is ideologically pure…and a secret brexiter (leading a party whose 90% remain supporting), who’ll make a tit of themselves for the next 5 years, provide no effective opposition to the Tories, lose the next election and become another martyr for nihilism, but who’ll still be celebrated by the Corbynites for “winng the argument” (ya like that will be a great comfort to all those screwed over by the Tories).

Changing trains

I happened to be out on a post-Christmas walk, when I saw a train go past, clearly an ex-Virgin Pendolino, but without the Virgin logo on it. For those who don’t know, Virgin lost the contract to operate, after they were forced out by the Tories for political reasons.

Now too be clear, I’ve never been a fan of Virgin trains and had my fair share of bad experiences on their trains. However, I fail to see how changing the logo on the side of a train changes anything. This is the problem with the Tory privatisation policy, its a game of pass the parcel from whichever billionaire bribes them the most, or commits the latest act of politician patronage.

And the rail users be damned. In the same week another fare rise is announced, we hear that Deutsche Bahn is slashing fares by 10% to help fight climate change. Of course, the counter argument is that the reason why the Germans can do this is because they have spent many decades investing in their rail service to provide a better more efficient service. This is something the British simply haven’t done.

And yes privatisation certainly hasn’t helped, but its not like Corbyn’s plan to spend several billion buying out the railway companies, just so he could peel off those same Virgin train stickers and put a British Rail sticker in their place isn’t going to magically change everything. Only investing large amounts of money to offset decades of under investment will change things for the better.

Chaos reigns at Disney

Disney likes to claim their theme park is the “happiest place in the world”. Well it seems like the production of Rise of Skywalker certainly wasn’t a very happy experience for many on set (some of the actors are saying they don’t plan to come back for any future movies). And we’ve had more leaks coming out, as attempts are made to pass the buck for what went wrong with the new trilogy. In fact, somebody has run the numbers and concluded that overall Disney may have lost over $2 billion on the Lucasfilm purchase, once you add up all the costs and subtract from revenue.

The latest leak, which seems to come from someone close to director J.J Abrams, claims that the previous plot leaks came from Disney management, not a disgruntled staffer, as part of some effort to paint Abrams in a bad light (while the leaks are undoubtedly true, as they match the released cut of the film, I find it dubious that Disney would undermine their own box office just to make Abrams feel bad). It also claims that a 3 hr long directors cut exists, which was allegedly co-written with George Lucas himself (again, I’d take that one with a pinch of salt), which was dropped by Disney at the the last minute (just weeks before the new movie hit theatres).

To me the key point here to take away is, there was no plan for how the new trilogy should unfold, no management nor oversight, everybody was just winging it as they went along. By contrast other franchises (such as Marvel) will plan several movies ahead, years in advance, before they even start filming. Lucasfilm CEO Kathleen Kennedy was too busy being a Hollywood icon to bother even goggling her own job description, Disney CEO Bob Iger was to busy writing his own book (and apparently he wants to run for president!) to monitor what Kennedy was up too. Meanwhile J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson were in boat pulling oars in opposite directions, leaving them spinning in circles, while George Lucas looked on in horror.

I mentioned before, the the recent Cats movie might be a good case study of the dangers of groupthink. But the new star wars trilogy might well be textbook example of what happens when you design something by committee. Having people with overlapping responsibilities but nobody in overall control (and no forum for them to sort things out) is never a good idea. Rather than several people doing the same job, instead nobody does the job. In short, too many cooks spoil the broth.

Arise lord Poverty

The Tories assumed they won’t have it all their own way, prior to the last election. After all, it was reasonable to assume they’d catch some blowback from everything. Hence several veteran MP’s in vulnerable seats didn’t stand. Well, now Boris Johnson’s simply made them lords, giving them the ultimate in golden parachutes. Some have even been invited to join the cabinet.

Chief among them is Ian Duncan Smith, whose system of universal poverty credit has thrown many in the UK into dire poverty of the sort you’d normally associate with developing world countries. More than 247,000 people signing a petition objecting to the award for a man “responsible for some of the cruellest, most extreme welfare reforms this country has ever seen”.

And Johnson ally Nicky Morgan, has been made a life peer and asked to join the cabinet. Yes, they’ll be deciding who get medicines and food after brexit and not a vote cast in their name. But apparently we had to leave the EU because it was so undemocratic.

My solution, how about we the public get to vote on their new title, which they will be required to use at all times. So IDS could be come Lord Scrooge. Nick Morgan can become Lady Arse-licker, etc. Can you imagine the Queen’s next garden party “I announce the arrival of Lord and Lady Taxdoger, Sir steals-a-lot-from-disabled, Dame Priti Racist and Sir Jeremy Cunt”

The Boris bridge

We’ve been warned that Boris Johnson can be prone to indulge in megalomaniac obsessions with big ticket vanity projects, which he tends to railroad through without proper oversight. There’s the infamous garden bridge, which fortunately never got built (but still cost the taxpayer £37 million). Or the £60 million cable car system that unfortunately did get built (and is hardly ever used). Or “Boris Island”, the planned new airport for London (which would be the wrong side of London, as everyone else in the country would have to travel through London to get too it, in an estuary with a large bird population and thus high risk of bird strikes and the small matter of a World War II munitions ship with a few thousand tons of unexploded bombs on board).

However, as PM he now seems to be planning on the ultimate folly, a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland…presumably so that, once both are out of the UK and back in the EU, they can trade more easily with one another. I recall joking how the DUP would be looking for an extension to the giants causeway off Theresa May. Well it would seem they are actually going to get one off Boris. Reality is out-running satire in brexit Britain.

Naturally, this ridiculous idea has been widely criticised by many experts. It would cost at least $15 billion and face numerous technical challenges (as in there’s a massive hole  in the middle of the Irish sea…which the British have been chucking munitions, chemical weapons and nuclear waste into for decades!), quite apart from a big question mark about its economic feasibility.

For those not from this part of the world, there are a host of good, high speed ferry links between Ireland and the UK. And the most popular is the Wales to Dublin route, which is served by multiple ships (including both one of the world’s largest ferry’s and one of its fastest). If you are travelling from England to Ireland (north or south) its simply a lot easier, quicker and cheaper (plus it burns less fuel) to take this route across, rather than drive all the way up to Scotland, and then down the B roads to Stranraer and take the ferry across from there.

And this apparently is one of a number of ways that Westminster aims to get powersharing back up and running (still deadlocked over the Irish language). Basically it looks like they plan to simply start bribing politicians up North with promises of loads of dosh.

Now the problem with this is that Northern Ireland’s parliament is one of the most corrupt, dysfunctional and incompetent bodies in the whole of Europe. This is largely because Stormont is split on ideological lines. Its completely tribal. The primary goal of politicians on both sides is to grab as much money for their community as possible (which will of course be squandered) and rub the other sides face in any mess and try to score political points. And the end consequence is NI is an economic black hole, with a GDP much lower than either Ireland’s or the rest of the UK’s. The UK’s GDP per capita would actually go up if they could get shot of NI, while Ireland’s would go down significantly.

However, what perhaps what this does demonstrate is that Northern Ireland might well be the template for future Westminster governments, which too is becoming little more than a similar tribal body, focused on scoring ideological points, rather than actually fixing the mess the country is in.

Musk v’s astronomy

I’ve mentioned Musk’s Starlink system before. But one aspect of its operation, which does not seem to have been considered, is its impact on light pollution. It threatens to make astronomy, both the professional kind and the amateur, nearly impossible to do, given the large number of satellites with their large solar panels. Even the small numbers launched so far (a few hundred out of the 12,000 he wants to launch) are enough to cause problems.

Musk has suggested, he’ll make the satellites less reflective, perhaps even paint them black or something. However astronomers have pointed out that that’s not how astronomy works. That density of objects in a low orbit is going to cause all sorts of problems, there’s really no way around that without changing one or other of those parameters (i.e. less satellites or move them to a higher orbit, neither of which Musk can do).

You may enquire well where is the US government on all of this. Asleep at the wheel of course! The FTC rushed through the application without any sort of proper checks, or even talking to astronomers first. Such is life under Trump. And while this libertarian approach might seem to benefit Musk, he might feel differently if people start boycotting his services (or stop buying his cars) until he de-orbits these satellites. Sometimes companies do want big government on their back.

Trump’s wall

Of course Trump’s number one priority was going to be his wall. How’s that going? Well to date under a 100 miles has been built out of the 2,000 needed! And most of that is fencing, covering areas which already had a fence. In fact the main component he’s added is some addition vehicle barriers (so they’ll mildly inconvenience someone looking to cross for a few minutes maybe). And all of this after the massive tizzy he pulled early last year shutting down the government for weeks just so he could get his precious wall. And recall that Mexico isn’t paying for it, he’s funding it by robbing money out of the pension fund for US veterans (how very Patriotic!)

What Trump promised….

But at least once its there (and at this rate it will take over a decade to complete) its done, right? Well ya if we ignore how much it would cost to maintain and staff it…..so they can watch helplessly as migrants come in, with the wall making little real difference. Because far from being impenetrable, people have already managed to climb over it, or cut truck sized holes in it, and in some cases its actually being cut up and stolen by locals!

….reality

Does this mean it will be abandoned? You’re joking right! Republicans don’t care if it works or not, nor how much money gets wasted. Its all about ID politics. Its a big totem symbol as to how racist America has become under Trump. Frankly they’d be just as happy if he blew tens of billions planting a line of burning crosses along the southern border. Facts do not matter to republicans anymore.

UK election update and how populism has broken British politics

Its long been true that a politicians promise lasts as long as a snow ball in hell and is about as reliable as the Scottish national football team. But this latest election in the UK really does take the biscuit. All the parties, but the Tories in particular, are proposing policies that are unworkable and divorced from reality. And as they also contradict everything the respective leaderships have done over the last few years, it is extremely unlikely they would actually keep these promises (if you think the Tories are going to invest money in the NHS, or you think Corbyn’s going to allow a 2nd referendum, I’ve got some magic beans I can sell you).

Inevitably this is the impact of populism on UK politics. Because the problem with populism and such tabloid friendly policies is that they violate what I would call the iron law of politics – all policies have to conform with the realities of the real world if they are too be successful. You can’t break the laws of physics, nor can you ignore reality. If a policy is not properly costed or it would have massive repercussions for a large number of people, or it is just plain unworkable, it ain’t going to happen. Any government who tries to implement such a policy can expect it to fail (as backbenchers rebel or you get sued and tied up in court or civil servants kill it off). Or worse they suffer a massive backlash against it after its implemented (which is basically what’s going to happen to the Tories and Corbyn after brexit happens).

Late us take a few examples. For starters the Tories brexit policy, where by they want a “clean break” brexit and to restrict immigration. That would put in jeopardy many UK businesses and a large number of jobs. The likely response from businesses is that they’ll try and circumvent this legislation (e.g. find a way to exploit the NI loophole to move goods in and out of the EU/UK) or they just hire a bunch of lawyers to fill out all the paperwork for them. Its the same way the corporations have been circumventing Trump’s tariffs (they send Soya beans to Brazil, or electronic goods from China to Taiwan, take it out of one box, put in another one and then send it off tariff free).

Of course, while big corporations can afford to insulate themselves and limit the damage of brexit, smaller businesses or individuals (who can’t afford to hire a lawyer to fill out the 86 pages of forms needed to claim residency) are going to be exposed to the very worst of its full effects. But there some elements of brexit big business can’t avoid. Any sort of queue at the borders for example immediately imposes a cost to them. Even if its only for a few hours, that basically means a truck driver cannot get his delivery into/out of the UK without going over his hours (so he’ll need to stop and rest or you’ll need two drivers, essentially doubling your costs).

Which is why the likely response is going to be for corporations to start suing the government, knowing full well the government doesn’t want to get into a messy legal scrap, which could involve sensitive documents being subpoenaed and ministers being called to testify in court (raising the risk that they perjure themselves while under oath). Pretty much every time the Tories have been faced with this threat so far over brexit they’ve either settled out of court or lost the case.

So corporations know that they can safely sue the government and either wriggle some sort of concession out of them or win compensation (noting that neither compels them to stay in the UK long term). Of course, as this means the EU (or the US, China and India) knows that they will have the UK over a barrel in trade talks, they will make few concessions because they don’t have too (as the UK will be compelled to do that for them).

That said, labour’s manifesto also repeatedly breaks this iron law of politics. Lets take for example their plan to abolish private schools. I mean I’d be curious as to what drugs they were doing when they dreamt up this one up. How’s that going to pan out in the real world? Well the previously private school will become a state funded school (which receives a donation of a few million a year from several anonymous offshore funds to top up its budget). The rich will just buy up all the property in its catchment area (then put the kids and a Nanny in those houses), so the only people who get to go to those schools will be rich kids. The only difference is that now, thanks to labour, taxpapers will be helping to subsidise the education of Ress-Mogg’s kids. Does that really strike anybody as a good idea?

And what about nationalising the water, power and rail companies. I mean yes the services they provide are terrible and overpriced, privatisation has been a failure, but that doesn’t mean you get to fill in the blanks with whatever fantasy most appeals to you. The devil is in the detail, and without such details re-nationalisation either won’t happen or it won’t change anything.

Assuming they can get such a bill through parliament, the first hurdle is that they will get sued by the shareholders of these companies. At the very least this ties labour up in court for several years, meaning that by the time the policy can be implemented the Tories might be back in (and just drop the case or reverse everything). The only way they can get around this problem is by paying out massive amounts of compensation. Money they simply won’t have.

And what would they be buying? The train operating companies or the UK utility firms are often just the front face that handles billing for your utilities or sells you a train ticket. The actual trains are mostly owned by a separate layer of firms, as will be some of the power stations and large parts of the gas and electricity grid. So you’d have to buy out these firms as well (which is easier said than done as they tend to own quite valuable assets). The UK track network is already owned by a state owned quango (so they are already in a defacto state of national ownership).

The cost of labour’s re-nationalisation plans according to the centre for policy studies See their website for further info

The trouble is having spent tens of billions (or possibly hundreds of billions) getting control over these assets, labour will have no money left to actually make any improvements. The reason why the UK has a railway network the Italians would be ashamed off is a long standing lack of investment into what is essentially a collection of Victorian era infrastructure (with a similar situation as regards water and power networks).

And while it has gotten a lot worse under privatisation (as they have a captive market and no real incentive to invest), its not like British rail was vastly better (they put some money in yes, but clearly not enough). I mean consider that steam engines were running on British railways up until 1968. So at the same time the Japanese are introducing their bullet trains, and France was working on the TGV, the British were being hauled around by Thomas the tank engine.

Unless the government is prepared to pour many tens of billions of pounds (per year) into the railways to correct these historical mistakes (with tens of billions more going the way of the energy & water), there’s little to be gained from re-nationalisation. They could subsidise ticket prices yes, or similarly subsidise electricity and water costs, as some other countries with state owned utilities do. But who is going to pay for that? And what’s to stop the Tories simply cancelling such subsidy’s when they get back into power?

Too which the usual reply for Corbyn supporters is tax the rich. However, as I pointed out before, while there are many good reasons why the rich should pay more in taxes (as they do so in many other countries). But we need to be realistic about how much money such taxes will actually raise. Labour themselves estimate such measures would only raise about £80 billion (which might be a little optimistic). But this is nowhere near enough.

The reality is that if they want to undertake such spending plans, they’d have to push up taxes for everybody. Now there’s no reason why higher taxes are a bad idea. There are many countries with thriving economies where citizens pay a lot more in tax (with the wealthy pay a disproportionately higher rate) and they get better public services (I have relatives in Germany and I know people who live in Scandinavia, this is their everyday reality and they prefer that to the British or American model).

And no the rich won’t leave the UK “within minutes” of Corbyn becoming PM. That’s just grade A BS. The only rich who will leave are those who are doing something illegal (you know like the hedge fund managers bribing Boris) or the ones who are bad at maths. For the reality is that the cost of living in a tax haven is often much higher. For example, Switzerland’s cost of living is twice that of Germany (so any German billionaire who lives across the border is imposing a defacto 50% flat tax on himself and having to pay taxes to the Swiss on top of that!).

But that said, there’s a limit to what the rich and corporations will tolerate (just look at Argentina or Venezuela). And a general increase in taxation isn’t what’s in labour’s manifesto promises. And as Marcon discovered when he tried to sneak a tax increase through in France, you are likely to face a serious backlash when the public catch you at it. But before any Tories start sniggering, brexit is also likely to be very expensive. As expensive as Corbyn’s nationalisation policy, if not much more expensive. They too will face the dilemma of either pushing up taxes or implementing another round of deep austerity, neither of which is going to go down terribly well with the general public.

What about borrowing? Well if you are bank would you lend money to either of these clowns? Probably yes (banks are kind of run by arrogant upper class types), but as its a riskier bet, only at the right price. Which means pushing up interest rates. Which means everybody on a mortgage or who is renting sees their bills going up, which again is likely to provoke an angry backlash. And this also means the financial markets will have Corbyn or Johnson over a barrel. If they don’t dance to the bankers tune, they risk losing access to credit (which they can’t afford to lose).

Finally, we need to acknowledge that the UK is part of a globalised world and not isolated from international events. Another tabloid friendly labour policy is to nationalise BT and give everyone free broadband access. I’m going to assume they’re not familiar with the train wreck which happened when Australia tried this, the so called blunder down under.

While I’m sceptical that Musk’s starlink will ever work, the very fact its being proposed shows how quickly technology is changing in this field

And I also assume labour are unfamiliar with Elon Musk’s plans to launch a 12,000 satellite network to provide cheap high speed broadband world wide. Now okay, everything Musk needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it highlights the fact that how we access the internet today might not be the way we do it in ten year time (how many of you are reading this on a smart phone, a device that was in its infancy when I started this blog). So Corbyn would be spending tens of billions getting his hands on assets that could well be worthless within a decade or so. And while I’m also sceptical of Musk’s hyperloop proposal, its going to mean a big pulse of research in the direction of maglev’s, So it again highlights how transport technologies may change.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that labour can’t implement its policies. The devil is in the detail. It requires one to be a bit more strategically clever and embrace your inner Tyrion Lannister. For example, rather than nationalising the UK railway’s (though holding the threat of it over their heads certainly won’t hurt) I’d instead lean on the rail companies to do their fe*king jobs. Refuse to allow any further fare increases (and either try to lower fares or let inflation do that job for you), fine the rail companies heavily any time a train is late (so heavily its just not in their interests to allow that to happen) and rigidly enforce the conditions of carriage (when you buy a rail ticket you and the rail company are entering into a contract whereby they are legally required to get you to your destination regardless of the costs to them).

Then at the same time offer them a carrot in the form of government money to improve the infrastructure (and again some of that is state owned anyway so that should be straight forward enough) and create a more efficient service, so long as they sign up to certain changes and support these improvements. The rail companies options will be to either sign up to this package or sell up and get out straight away. And even this is a win for the government as it means defacto nationalisation happens, but as the rail companies are doing so voluntarily, there’s no delay in court and you’d likely be able to buy them out at a fraction of the cost.

And equally, if I was a brexiter, far from leaving the EU asap, I’d stay in and draw the process out for as long as possible. As this is exactly what the EU wants to avoid. If they refuse any further extensions, revoke article 50 and threaten a 2nd referendum and a future re-issuing of it at a time that will be most inconvenient for the EU. That would put them over a barrel and force them to grant concessions they’d otherwise be unwilling to concede.

Finally, one has to acknowledge that some of the lefts policies do look a little elitist to anyone who doesn’t follow politics. Do people too poor to take the train really care if the government owns it rather than some random company. Those who do use the trains might see that as a good thing, but they are likely to be able to afford their own internet and would be turned off by the idea of the government owning it. The lib dems policy of revoking article 50 might make sense if you understand the dynamics of how a 2nd referendum would unfold, but it sounds a lot like they just want to ignore the referendum result.

By contrast the Tories have managed to keep their lies consistent. The trouble is, this is more than the usual election white lies. Its bordering on serious fraud. And I don’t think they appreciate the backlash they’ll face once the public realise they’ve been conned.

This is the problem with populism. It forces politicians to undertake blunt manoeuvres on a level his or her base can understand, even when they are strategically stupid things to do. It encourages leaders to lie to their own supporters, because nothing is more dangerous to populism than the truth. Consider that Boris’s brexit plan involved throwing the DUP under the bus and conceding everything the EU had originally asked May to agree too (which she hadn’t), even though he resigned because he argued May had conceded too much.

And in the US the consequences of Trump’s populist policy has been that corporations just kept the bits they liked (tax cuts for them, military and wall building contracts galore) and threw away everything else (e.g. bringing jobs back to America, LOL, for a laugh let’s make parts of the F-35 in China and Turkey). With a White House in chaos, a whole host of problems are building up, dictators have effectively been given free reign to do whatever they like, as have criminals. In fact we’ve seen an explosion in corruption and fraud, ranging from the $4 billion OneCoin ponzi scheme to an epidemic of Indian scammers targeting Americans and fleecing them (India’s Modi of course being another populist racist). So all of this is likely to be what’s coming to the UK post-election, particularly if the Tories win (disaster capitalism at its worst).

Regardless of who wins the election (save the lib dems, the spoil sport girly swots who’d cancel brexit), the policies of both party leaders will mean they’ll quickly find themselves bogged down by their own rhetoric. After which they will have little room to manoeuvre and will just have to do whatever they are told by the banks, the EU and the corporations. And that is what you are voting for.

Brexit and the game of dolts

Brexit seems to becoming a byword for foolishness and folly as well as deceit and betrayal. And we need only look at the strategies being pursued by Corbyn and Johnson for proof of that. Both appear to be adopting a policy towards brexit that is reckless and foolhardy. But equally for both leaders, their stated policy is just a charade for what is their real agenda.

Corbyn for example says that he will support a general election as soon as the EU rules out no deal. This despite predictions suggesting he will likely lose a general election. Either by a small margin (but with the Tories losing enough seats to offer labour the chance of a coalition with other parties), or by some massive margin. Naturally this has labour MP’s with small majorities (and even some with big majorities) in jitters.

A more sensible strategy would be to use his defacto majority to take control of parliament (with the aid of Tory rebels and the smaller parties) and start amending and then pushing through Johnson’s withdrawal deal. They could amend the deal to put back in a customs union and protection for workers rights. While it seems unlikely he’d be able to attach a public vote to it (that said, according to the lib dems the main barrier to people’s vote right now is the labour party), but certainly Corbyn could lay the ground work for that.

This would turn things on its head. Labour would go into an election with a clear brexit position – vote for us and we will put this amended deal to the public. Only labour can “get brexit done”. Instead it would be Johnson whose left with a ambiguous position on brexit. Out one side of his mouth he’ll be promising a no deal (maybe tomorrow, maybe at the end of the transition period, but some day and for the rest of your life). Out the other side, oh I want a deal (maybe the amended one, maybe a different one, who knows!)….and presumably out his arse whatever Dominic Cummings reckons will win the most votes!

Instead Corbyn is committing labour to yet more fence sitting contortions, with a brexit policy as clear as Irish stout. And since we are talking about it, he’s not taken any action to punish the 19 MP’s who defied the whip and voted for a brexit deal that would strip UK workers of their rights and allow the wrecking of environmental standards.

This has led to howls of protest from labour supporters who now say that not only do they not know where labour stands on brexit, but where does it stand on anything else for that matter. And can you blame them. On the one hand we have labour promising a carbon neutral UK (if they win an election…and the climate deniers in the party can be made to vote for it one assumes). Yet the same week we have labour MP’s voting for a bill that will roll back environmental protections. Can any part of their manifesto be taken seriously now? Naturally, this is not the sort of scenario where you want to go into an election.

Meanwhile the sensible strategy for Johnson would be to carry on regardless. Given that there seems to be momentum to push the brexit deal through, ride that wave and try to thwart efforts to edit or amend it too much. In other words follow through with his own election slogan to “get brexit done”. Yes that will require a short extension, but so what, it still happens in the near future.

But instead he’s pulled the vote on the deal from parliament and focused on getting an election. In fact he’s even implied that if he doesn’t get his election he’ll just take his toys back to Downing street and sulk, then pretend he’s having one by going out campaigning. This has put the possibility of a brexit extension from the EU in jeopardy. And, as I’ve discussed before, while yes the odds are good that Johnson could win, it would be huge gamble as it could easily backfire (particularly if the opposition promote the line, we were willing to vote through a deal, only reason we didn’t was because of Johnson).

And since we are talking about it, an election at Christmas time, seriously? Are you lot for real? Is Boris related by any chance to the Grinch? Do these clowns have any idea of the logistics involved in holding election at Christmas. At a time of year when people are either going to be busy finishing work before the holidays (students will be up to the eyeballs in coursework and exam preparation) or Christmas shopping you want to have an election. With the risk that weather related events could disrupt the vote, postal ballots will be delayed and every church hall & function room in the country booked for a Christmas related events.

So the positions of both party leaders appears to be foolish. At least until you understand what’s really going on. Johnson knows his brexit deal is bonkers. I mean he’s putting a hard border down the Irish sea, such that British people will have to show a passport and go through customs and immigration controls passing between two parts of the same country. But its a placebo deal designed to serve one purpose, get him an election so he can get a majority. After that he couldn’t give a monkey’s.

To Johnson brexit has always been a means to an end. I won’t be surprised, if he wins a large majority, if he then tosses the ERG lot under the bus (same as he did to the DUP) and pushes for a soft brexit or even revokes article 50. Anything is possible with Johnson, as it depends what the hedge funds managers backing him think will net them the biggest gain. He’s the ultimate disaster capitalist.

Corbyn meanwhile doesn’t want to lay the ground work for a public vote because then he’d have to hold one. And he knows full well the likely outcome would be remain. The reality is that Corbyn is a more committed brexiter than either Johnson or the ERG. He’s basically playing the long game. Corbyn knows he’s unelectable, nor is it likely any hard left labour leader could ever be elected under normal circumstances. But a damaging no deal brexit, brought about by the Tories would allow a future hard left leader (and there’s a number of viable candidates within labour) to do just that. Its not so much disaster capitalism but disaster socialism.

But either way, brexit has become a political football. A game to be played for political advantage. And the politicians are placing the pursuit of this game over the best interests of the country. And neither of them shows the slightest inclination towards actually resolving the brexit question. I mean who’d want to go and do a silly thing like that!

Three borders Boris & the post brexit backlash

So after several months of Johnson & the DUP saying no, no, never to any form of hard border on the island of Ireland (something he reaffirmed just 24 hrs before), now he’s proposing to put in place two borders (or arguably three borders as there will need to be immigration checks at the Ferry ports). And rather than a backstop (which recall was a British idea, not the EU’s) he’s managed to come up with something worse.

To say its unworkable is something of an understatement. Are we seriously to believe that a farmer, whose farm straddles the border (a not uncommon thing), and wants to move a cow from one side of the border to the other has to drive 10 km’s into NI, clear customs, drive 20 km’s back and into Ireland, then 10 km’s back to the farm. And without border checks what’s to stop a truck that’s been cleared through customs simply stopping in a lay-by, loading up with contraband and then driving through (then off load again onto another truck once across). And in the unlikely event of getting caught (the police have made clear there is no way they could hope to search even a fraction of the vehicle traffic), the driver just claims he’s moving a load to Donegal.

And the best bit, the backstop is replaced by the Stormont lock. The economic fate of the EU, UK and Ireland would hinge on the competence of one of the most incompetent and corrupt legislative bodies in Europe. Stormont hasn’t met for two years, officially because of silly dispute over the Irish language. However in reality, the DUP are fearful that Sinn Fein will be able to get enough support from the neutral parties to form a government and take power. They’d then likely use the aftermath of brexit to force through a border poll. And that’s not idle paranoia, SF entire reason for existing is a united Ireland.

So its entirely likely SF would use the Stormont lock as a wedge to force a border poll if given half a chance (while the DUP will use it to frustrate them and seek further bribes from Westminster). Neither party will even remotely care about the economic damage their actions cause. After all if why do you think the GDP for NI is so much lower than it is in the rest of the UK (NI’s GDP is only €23,000 v’s about €42,000 for the whole of the UK and €77,000 for the republic). And any kind of hard border will make NI even poorer, which will eventually just lead to the resumption of terrorist attacks.

Clearly the primary purpose of this proposal is so that Johnson’s tabloid allies can sell it as a compromise. One that will only fail because of the EU, remainers and traitorous judges & civil servants. As I said in my last post, Johnson has suspended parliament (you know like Hitler did!) and is now trying to find a way to suspend laws he doesn’t like, notably the Benn act. Clearly his electoral plan is to blame the EU for no deal/no brexit, while dialing the lying and anti-Corbyn rhetoric up to eleven.

A delivery of vintage champagne to the Tory conference. And the Tory pitch is you should vote for them because the other parties represent an out of touch elite!

Such irresponsible behaviour, just so that he can cling to power has to be some of the worse behaviour we’ve ever seen from a UK government, which is setting a very dangerous precedence. The many miscalculations that are going on here is staggering, and the consequences are likely to be severe. They’ve even been sample testing George Soros conspiracy theories (ya and labour are the ones labelled as anti-Semitic, go figure!).

I mean we were told that we need to get out of the EU because of all the money it costs, yet we now have a government promising to spend tens of billions just dealing with the fallout of a no deal. And this is merely one of a long list of spending commitments, with no clue as to where the money is supposed to come from (and labour have pointed out some are actually prior spending commitments which have run over budget (due to inflation from the falling pound & Tory incompetence) and need more money!).

And Johnson’s plan (his real one, not this silly proposal to the EU) only works if he can force through an early election (before the negative consequences of brexit become obvious). Now if the opposition has any sense they’ll not allow that, forcing Boris to stay on and deal with the consequences of a no deal with a minority government and lose vote after vote for two years….then again, Corbyn might just be dumb enough to allow an early election. Even so while yes the Tories are well ahead in the polls, that doesn’t mean they’ll win. They are effectively sacrificing pro-remain seats in cities and Scotland, in favour of leave voting seats in the North and industrial towns.

However, that would require getting the voters in those districts to vote Tory…which many won’t do (these are the people Thatcher screwed over, many hate the Tories, in fact they voted leave as a two fingered salute against the Tories). So the strategy is more about getting them to vote for the brexit party, who would steal enough support off labour to allow the Tories to win those seats. But its a strategy that could easily fall apart.

If their “people v’s parliament campaign” works too well, then the brexit party takes those seats (potentially becoming too big for the Tories to control, or even overtaking them). And if the lib dems withdraw their candidates (perhaps doing a last minute deal with labour), labour might still hang onto them. And given that the Tories now need to make up a 40 seat deficit (and they’ll likely lose a further 20-40 more to the lib dems & SNP), there’s every chance Boris could find himself well short of a majority, even if he wins the popular vote by a comfortable margin (as I’ve pointed out before, its possible under FptP for a party to win the popular vote, but finish 2nd in terms of seats).

And while the Tories might be planning to promise high spending and then air brush those promises from history (as they’ve tried to do before), I’m not sure the public will be happy about that when they discover they’ve basically been conned. Yes politicians do lie, but never before have voters been scammed on this scale. Consider for example Boris seems to be quietly accepting that post-brexit immigration pledges can’t be met. Likely because he knows that the likes of India and China will make the relaxation of immigration controls a condition of any trade deal.

Ultimately the problem here is that the Tory party no longer has any sort of ideology (they have literally lost the plot), other than sadopopulist rhetoric and self inflicted suffering, which they will blame on others. Much like the US Republican party they now exist for no real purpose other than to stop anyone else changing things for the better. While pursuing policies that they know will leave the very people who vote for them worse off….and of course lining their own pockets. And Johnson’s close links to hedge funds betting on a no deal outcome means the Tories already make the GOP look like amateur hour in this regard.

But like I said, the consequences to for the UK of these games the Tories are playing is going to be dire. And a hard brexit is just the start. Have the Tories paused to consider the sort of bus that a future left wing populist leader could drive through the UK legal system if they were to behave like the Tories.

Brexit has radicalised the left in the UK. Hence we have policies coming out of labour calling for private schools to be scrapped and their assets ceased. Granted, at the moment this is just a lunatic fringe on the edges of the labour party (and labour lack the votes to form a majority government). But a no deal brexit and another 5 years of Tory rule could well mean that such a fringe will be the ones in charge (keep in mind Corbyn will be gone, someone more electable will be leader and they might also be from the radical left wing of the labour party).

Because such radicals won’t be interested in simply reversing Tory policies any more. Instead the goal will be more about get revenge on Tory’s and brexit voters. This after all is where Italy’s 5star movement came from. Its how the Bolivarians in Venezuela got started and why they are still in power despite the fact the country’s economy has effectively collapsed (as some in the Venezuela take the view, well I have it bad, but at least the wealthy and the elites have finally gotten their comeuppance). So it is a serious risk.

Because it means that a future hard left PM post-brexit won’t be banning public schools. He or she will simply encourage their supporters to burn them to the ground. No need to nationalise the railway’s or energy companies, simply tell their supporters to dodge their fare and not pay their bills. And ya the courts will give him a rebuke for that, but much as Boris isn’t going to jail for an unlawful suspension of parliament, neither will this future PM.

And if you can simply suspend laws due to a crisis (as seems to be Johnson’s plan, to whip up riots and then suspend the Benn act), that applies to the left as well (e.g. they use riots and burning of public schools as an excuse to suspend certain laws, cease the assets of the wealthy or abolish the old age pension in order to punish the older generation for brexit). What goes around comes around.

And in the US as well, Trump has essentially radicalised the left. And again, while at the moment that likely means Warren winning the nomination (possibly Biden if the GOP get lucky), I suspect after a Trump 2nd term the left’s candidate might be a little more radical (so if you think either of them are a bit too left wing, buckle up!). And again this radicalised left will be more interested in screwing Trump voters than fixing America.

They could for example use the same emergency powers Trump has used to ban guns, or enact the green new deal, or stack the supreme court with a dozen millennial liberals (then change the law so congress no longer has any say in appointing future justices). They could go line by line through the US budget and cut anything that benefits Republican voting states. And given that many red states are massive welfare queens, while democrat states often send more money to DC than they spent, this would basically bankrupt many red states, while allowing blue states to take a tax cut, or spend more on public services.

And recall there is one nuclear option that a future sadopopulist left wing government could implement relatively easily, that would utterly screw over the older generations to the benefit millennial’s. Make no effort to defend the value of the pound or the dollar and run the magic printing press and start spending like a sailor on shore leave. But wouldn’t that cause hyper inflation? Ya, that would kind of be the point! You’d quickly wipe out the debts of many young millennial’s while simultaneously wiping out the value of pensioners savings and the assets of the wealthy.

Now to be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating these policies. The last one for example, many governments have tried to use high inflation to wipe out debts and its often run out of their control (just look at Argentina some time!). I’m simply pointing out what will happen if the left starts action like trump supporters or brexiters. Really the best case scenario for both groups is for their respective leaders to be impeached and removed from office and given a lengthy prison sentence. As otherwise I won’t want to be a wealthy conservative (or a pensioner) in about 5 years time.

And while I understand why many want to vote Tory in order to “get brexit done”, but as I’ve pointed out before a no deal doesn’t end brexit (brexit is a process not a destination), it simply lengthens the process and makes sure the UK will be over a barrel (once we’ve run out of bog roll, food, fuel and medicines) when it comes to negotiating a future relationship with the EU, USA and other major trading partners (as recent US tariff’s against the UK demonstrate). In truth if you want to wipe brexit from the political agenda, then really the lib dem plan to revoke article 50 is the only thing that would do that.

What does the EU want out of brexit?

The brexiter’s have been ratcheting up the rhetoric recently, portraying anyone asking for an extension as “surrender“. And a 2nd referendum they say would be “a betrayal”. Such language is extremely dangerous. Its put MP’s and even their kids at risk. Boris is only a few steps away from becoming a dictator. He suspended parliament and is now trying to find a way to suspend laws he doesn’t like, which would set a dreadful precedence. Woe to the Tories should a hard brexit go through, as they are simply inviting any future hard left government to do the same (or worse!).

But is it really a “betrayal” to want to stay in the EU? There seems to be an automatic assumption that the EU wants the UK to stay. I’d argue that if anything the opposite is true. While yes many europeans would want to avoid seeing the UK leave and we’ve had the odd brain fart from European leaders along the lines of maybe the UK should just stay. But these comments are more exasperation at how messy this process has become.

In truth the EU has long resigned itself to the fact the UK is leaving. After all, its not like the UK was ever the most committed member of the block. And with the UK out of the block, yet probably tied to the EU in some way or form (just unable to veto anything Brussels does), is likely seen as the best of both world’s as far as the Brussels eurocrats are concerned. So the EU wants the UK to leave, but leave with a deal of some sorts. Specifically a deal that doesn’t spark a civil war in NI, or potentially one in Scotland either (given the chances of them leaving after brexit).

But, the brexiters say we don’t want a custom’s union, we want a free trade deal. Well a free trade deal was the EU’s opening bid to Theresa May, but the hard brexiters said no to that. Not because of the backstop, this initial offer contained no such thing. But because it meant NI staying in the single market, with the customs border essentially being at the Irish sea. To the Brussel’s eurocrats this seemed the most pragmatic solution to the problem, given the noises coming out of London. After all, NI’s economy is heavily integrated with Ireland’s and any kind of customs checks would cripple its economy overnight….which would probably lead to NI having a referendum and joining the south.

The EU’s decision making process and why they felt a Canada style FTA might be the only alternative to no deal

Of course just because Brussels offers you an FTA, doesn’t mean you should take it. Its a good solution…for the EU! It would mean that they’d open up trade with the UK just as much as they need too, but restrict trade in other areas. So they’d allow trade in agricultural products and some manufactured goods, allowing EU states to continue to export to the UK tariff free (but with some customs checks), but then restrict access in other areas (such as finance, seems unlikely they’d concede on this after the cum-ex scandal).

Of course if the UK were to sign similar FTA’s with the US and China, then UK companies would be in the worst of both worlds. Required to meet strict EU standards if they want to export into the block, yet still facing custom’s checks and delays at the border. While also facing competition from cheap low quality products flooding the country tariff free from beyond the EU. Inevitably many UK farmers and manufacturers would go to the wall. After that happens the EU, US and China would carve up what’s left of the UK market between them. I mean why do you think Dyson moved to Singapore and Rees Mogg has relocated his hedge fund to Dublin. They know how its going to go down.

A FTA is better than no deal, but not by much

This is not too say Brussels is opposed to a custom’s union. Far from it! Their concern is, given how the brexiters claim that the EU is undemocratic (this from a party who has suspended democracy and now wants to suspend the rule of law), you can imagine the fuss the UK will make about being in the situation where they are a rule taker, not a rule maker, yet still paying 90% of what it costs to be a fully signed up EU member.

But yes, if a custom’s union can get voted through parliament then the EU would allow it. In fact I get the impression (from the language in the withdrawal deal) the plan was for May to wait until she was in a position to throw either the hard brexiters or the DUP under the bus (perhaps by doing a deal with Corbyn or winning another post-brexit election), then do a custom’s union and thus negate the need for a backstop.

The reality is that there is only one reason why the UK hasn’t left yet, and its because of the Tory party. If anyone has “betrayed brexit” or “surrendered” (to Putin and Trump) its the Tory party. Had they rallied around some soft brexit option (e.g. the Norway or Swiss model) early on in the process, that would have likely been acceptable to the remainer’s within parliament. And recall, May had a majority at the start of this process. She only pissed away that majority in an effort to win a bigger majority as she couldn’t get the hard brexiters to commit to any softer options. And ironically, the Tories current no deal plans effectively imposes the same status on the NI border as the EU originally proposed.

And those hard brexiters are now taking the hard line position they have now adopted because they are trapped. If they don’t leave the EU by Halloween, they’ll lose support to the brexit party. On the other hand they know they can’t possibly meet all the promises they made in the referendum. Any kind of deal will screw over the UK in some way. So better to go for a no deal then, which would please certain wealthy tax dodgers whom they are in the pocket of (the EU’s tax laws change in January, making it harder to dodge taxes and keep accounts secret, any sort of withdrawal agreement would see the UK still subject to EU laws during this period) and blame the negative consequences of a no deal on the EU, remainers and poor people.

Revoke or referendum, the lib dem’s dilemma

Normally what’s in the lib dem’s manifesto hardly matters, given the very low probability of them ever being able to implement it. However, with them now vying for 2nd place against labour and the brexit party (and a meltdown with more defections from labour is likely due to heavy handed tactics at conference from Corbyn’s red pioneer brigade), it suddenly becomes a little more relevant. And they’ve promised to not only support a people’s vote, but try to revoke article 50 and cancel brexit altogether.

This has drawn criticism from many quarters, even from other remain supporters, such as Caroline Lucas. And while I would tend to agree, the way out of the current mess is another referendum (preferably legally binding with remain and a definite brexit option on the ballot), but that’s easier said than done. While a 2nd referendum is probably inevitable (even if the UK leaves, there will just be another in ten years time to rejoin), it does not follow through that this will resolve the divide brexit has created in the UK.

To illustrate my point let us suppose that a pro-people’s vote coalition either force Johnson out in October, or win an election. Firstly, in order to have a people’s vote, they need to get another extension. And it will have to be a longish one, ideally a year. The brexiters will run resistance at every turn, slowing down legislation and you need time to run the campaign (the electoral commission says a minimum of 6 months will be needed). Plus, while polls do suggest remain would win, you’d have to allow sometime at the end to get the country ready if leave wins a 2nd time (as there will be no stopping brexit at this point, as its a legally binding poll).

This creates the first obstacle. A long extension might be refused. The eurosceptic nations in the EU want the UK to leave, but leave with a deal, hence they’ve been willing to grant extensions up until now. They might well veto one if its for a people’s vote (especially if its a bearded leftie like Corbyn who is the one asking for an extension). And some of the more pro-EU nations might even veto it, calculating that the remainers will not follow through with a no deal and simply cancel brexit instead.

Granted, they may get around this problem, and a clever PM (which rules out Corbyn!) would find a way to bargain with the EU leaders (or just threaten to revoke article 50 and then re-issue it at a time when it will be most inconvenient for Brussels). But next there’s the hurdle of getting a referendum bill through parliament. Remain’s going to be one option on the ballot, but what about the brexit option?

As I mentioned before, the reason why no other EU state has tried to leave and the reason the UK still hasn’t left is that once you take away the unicorns and start getting specific about which brexit option you want (Norway model, reverse Greenland, Swiss plus, Canada dry, etc.) opinion divides, largely because it means accepting that you are worse off out than in. And as noted, polls do show that once you put a specific type of brexit to people v’s remain, remain typically wins by a comfortable margin.

The brexiters, all too aware of this fact, will therefore be reluctant to commit to any specific brexit option, other that perhaps no deal. This appeals to them largely because its kind of a blank canvas and they can paint on any outcome they like. It sounds like a clean break. In truth however, it just means that when we run out of bog roll, food and medicines the EU will have the UK over a barrel in negotiations. As will the US and the Chinese. Plus no deal is likely illegal. Hence putting it on a legally binding ballot might be impossible, as it will likely be challenged in court.

Some talk of a three way ballot or multiple choice ballots. I’d argue that’s risky. It might confuse voters and you can be guaranteed the tabloids, the brexiters and Putin’s trolls will make damn sure they are given incorrect instructions, as they try to game the outcome they want. As a result it could lead to a messy outcome that makes the current situation even worse. I mean imagine if we had two brexit options that each got 30% and remain got 40% and remain wins by a 10% margin. Or a alternative vote ballot, where remain wins the first round by a high margin, May/Corbyn’s deal gets eliminated, but the transferable votes from it allow no deal to sneak through by a few hundred votes (with claims afterwards of several thousand who were given incorrect instructions by Twitter trolls). There would be howls of protest.

Realistically, the only way to hold a people’s vote is with two options on the ballot, some sort of brexit deal and remain. But who will decide on which? And more importantly who will lead the leave campaign? Corbyn has suggested he’d be happy to negotiate a deal (in other words cross out May’s name and insert his!), but will then hide in his allotment shed for the duration of any referendum campaign. While I’m sure May could be tempted to front such a campaign (she’s a glutton for punishment after all), but the leading brexiters, Farage, Johnson, et al will all refuse to participate and they’ll tell their supporters its a remainer stitch up, boycott the poll.

Why you may ask? Well simple Fabian tactics. If you know you are going to lose (and like I said the polls put remain ahead by +10% over most of the brexit options), why fight when you can just march off the field. And for them brexit is a means to an end. If there were to be a 2nd referendum which they lost fair and square by a comfortable margin, they’re finished. As I’ve mentioned before, a 2nd referendum will be something of a grudge match. While Cameron prevented any “blue on blue” attack ads during the 1st campaign, labour and the lib dems will let lose with both barrels.

After all, the best way to win would be to question the motives of those pushing for brexit (i.e. the fact that are involved with hedge funds who will do rather well profiting from the UK’s decline), while pointing to the hypocrisies of the leavers (e.g. that Farage has a German citzenship). Plus do you really want to trust the country’s future to someone like Boris who isn’t even trusted by his own brother. So many of those in the Tory party who hitched their wagon to the brexit train will be forced to resign and the brexit party will be sunk. Even if by some miracle brexit still won they’ll still take a hit, it would still be a zero sum game for them. Better to stay out of the fight and encourage a boycott.

And yes, the outcome of such a scenario will be remain wins by some massive crazy majority (90% sort of thing). But unless the turn out is suitably high (and if you know remain’s going to win anyway, are people really going to waste their time going to the polls?), the brexiters will argue it wasn’t a fair fight and they can ignore it, promising to re-issue article 50 the first chance they get. In other words you’ve not changed anything.

So given such facts of life, the Lib dems proposal to revoke is actually quite pragmatic. There’s no point in holding a people’s vote if its not going to resolve anything. But I would add a caveat. I’d suggest cancelling brexit, by revoking article 50, but putting a grandfather clause in that requires the government to return to this issue after a suitable delay (say 5-10 years after which the government must pass another bill confirming we are staying in or else a legally binding referendum to leave will be automatically triggered). This means they can say to leave voters, look we wanted to have a 2nd vote and settle this issue, but it takes two to tango and the brexiters just took off their dancing shoes and downed a bottle of scotch. So by deliberately kicking the can down the road the current crisis is resolved, but it leaves open the option to return to the issue at some point in the future.

And delaying a 2nd vote does have advantages. While I’d argue it would be hard to hold a fair and balanced poll now, that doesn’t further divide the country, emotions might not be running so high in the future. Given that presumably such a remainer alliance will have by then, ended austerity and gone some way towards fixing the mess left by the Tories (plus issues like the migrant crisis might well be resolved), a referendum can be held under much fairer and more rational conditions. And simple demographics means that many of these swivel eyed no-deal supporting pensioners will have died off, replaced with younger voters (who tend to want remain, or if they are pro-leave, they tend to want a soft brexit).

In fact its entirely possible that even if a Troy/brexit party coalition could get into power in ten years time they’ll come up with some excuse not to have a 2nd vote (because they know that they’ll lose and even if they win they’ll be throwing away their time in office, repeating the mess of the last few years). So while yes, I support a people’s vote, I think we need to be realistic about how it will be held. And revoking article 50 certainly has to be an option that gets considered.