Where are we on Brexit?

[andrewducker]

It's been a while since we had one of these, and I wanted to get my thoughts in order.

The local elections last week _should_ have sent a solid message. But, of course, Corbyn and May are saying that the message it sent was "More Brexit Please". However, they've still not got any chance of getting a deal over the line.

Labour won't accept a Brexit deal with the Conservatives without a customs deal of some kind*. And Theresa May agreeing to that would cause at least 100 of her MPs to vote against it.

Meanwhile, two thirds of Labour MPs are saying they won't vote for any Brexit deal which doesn't have a second referendum attached to it.

Plus, of course, the EU have said that all they will edit at this point is the political declaration, the actual withdrawal agreement is sealed.

And if the government decides "The hell with this" and call a general election we end up in a situation like this:
Conservatives: 279
Labour: 268
Liberal Democrats: 29
SNP: 51 (I think, looking at the other numbers)

Which means you'd need Lab+Lib+SNP for a solid majority**. Coalition of Chaos indeed!

*As far as anyone can tell the Labour leadership are still thinking that they can have a customs deal that gives them lots of access to things, but without having to give anything up. As they aren't about to be able to directly negotiate, we're not likely to see their unicorns run into a brick wall.

** Although Labour could aim for a minority government and just dare others to vote against them. Or pick just one of the other two parties to have a formal agreement with.

Comments

[autopope]

The real problem with that coalition is that Labour in Scotland hate, loathe, and fear the SNP, who they see as their opposition — as much their opposition in Scotland, in fact, as the Tories are in England.

There's some reason for this (as Andrew knows): the SNP cannibalized Labour's base from about 1995-2016, driving them from being a party which, as a friend of mind put it, could propose a plank as a candidate and get it nailed into a council seat, to being in danger of becoming a permanent opposition. Since the Scottish parliament came into being exactly 20 years ago today, the SNP has been in power (albeit often as a coalition/minority party) since 2007, and they're the largest rank-and-file party in Scotland by a mile. They're also broadly social-democratic, except on the one specific issue of independence, so they're competing for the same voters!

So, firstly Labour would be incredlby reluctant to form a coalition with the SNP (almost as much so as with the Conservatives), and secondly, what would the SNP price for joining a coalition be? Either cancellation of Brexit (not on Corbyn's agenda, currently), or another independence referendum (not inconceivable, but something any Westminster PM would be extremely wary about).

On the other hand, a sufficiently machiavellian Labour-LibDem-SNP coalition could push through left-wing policies unpopular with voters in middle England and blame then on "those SNP socialists" … except that's unlikely to work with Corbyn in the driving seat (he's to the left of Sturgeon). So where does that leave us?

Edit: just saw Mike's comment below, I think he's probably (80%) correct on there not being another coalition after the way Cameron bent the LibDems over the proverbial barrel in 2010.

[mountainkiss]

He’s also not very Machiavellian, or at least not very good at it (and I tend to suspect the former; most of his career has been about protest).

That said, I get the impression (not on sufficient data to be authoritative) that he’s really very keen to be Prime Minister, and it’s remarkable* the effect that can have.

*or maybe not.

Also, how much voice does Labour in Scotland have in this? They have 7 MPs IIRC.

[skington]

There's a theory that Jeremy Corbyn isn't particular smart full stop, and that he's an ideologue with predictable positions on particularly everything because that avoids having to think about issues.

McDonnell, however, appears to be sharper, and may have internalised that those Labour seats in Scotland aren't coming back. At the moment, there are 35 SNP, 13 Tories, 7 Labour and 4 LibDem, so Scotland being in the Union is a net -33 MPs from the Tories' point of view; but if you consider posturing about being the largest party only, the Tories are already ahead, and arguably a Labour minority government trying to form a confidence and supply agreement might already be in trouble if it could only guarantee a deal with the LibDems. I've long reckoned that the Tories will only win in Scotland when everyone who remembers the Poll Tax is dead; but it doesn't take many SNP seats falling to the Tories before Scotland becomes a net negative from the point of the UK Labour Party.

[autopope]

Good numbers. The problem, I suspect, is that Scottish Labour will have a cow if UK Labour make nice with the SNP. Not for ideological reasons: a UK-level Lab-SNP pact directly threatens their jobs by putting their whole reason for existing into question (both parties are broadly left wing/social democratic, and if the SNP can cooperate with Labour at UK-national level, then what use is Scottish Labour anyway?).

[danieldwilliam]

Aye.

I'd go further. The SNP are a pure existential threat to the Labour Party in Scotland. I think they fear that other than a difference over the Constitution there's no difference between them. There's a risk that Labour just stop having a point.

[skington]

“What use is Scottish Labour anyway?” is pretty much the story of Scottish politics for the last 10 years or so.

[mountainkiss]

At some point there’s going to have to be a coalition of someone. The two party system isn’t going to get anyone a sufficient majority. But that point might not be as close as the council elections suggest.