Another tumultuous week draws to a close in Westminster. After the scandals over MP’s second jobs and cases of outright corruption, the public eye has shifted its attention on a series of Christmas parties held at Downing Street and in other government buildings in December 2020 when the country was under strict lockdown restrictions including a ban on mixing of households. Almost daily reports of new parties and gatherings during lockdown restrictions continue emerging – now also extending to the Conservatives Party itself which is accused of having organised a party at London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey’s campaign headquarters. Worse still, a video emerged in which government officials openly joked about the Christmas party in what seems like a rehearsal press conference for the case the news about a Downing Street Christmas party would break. The PM insists he did not take part in any of the Christmas parties now under investigation, but photographs have now emerged showing him taking part in a Christmas quiz at Downing Street, seated between two colleagues not wearing a mask.
Despite almost daily revelations, the government continues its approach of acknowledging that a party may have taken place – or not – but insisting that if it had – which it may not have – it was in full compliance with the rules – probably.
Senior cabinet members like Dominic Raab would simply state that they could not know if rules were broken, because they did not attend the party that may not have taken place. Police Minister Kit Malthouse, interviewed last Monday by Mishal Husain on BBC4’s Today programme (at 2:20:50) similarly stated he had been given the assurance that no rules had been broken at any time, but admitted that he had simply taken these reassurances at face value. So, even if there was a party it was within the rules, but he could not be sure because he was not there. Ms Husain pointed out that having had a party that complied with the rules seemed like a contradiction in terms given that any social gathering of two or more people was prohibited by law at the time. A further turn in the denial strategy came this week from Health Secretary Sajid Javid made a subtle, but interesting change in his defence of the PM, by stating this week that since he had received assurance that no rules were broken at Number 10, it logically followed that no party could have taken place.
In actual fact, things are not as simple as that, as the Covid regulations did allow for gathering’s in non-private dwellings in some circumstances. Even though having drinks nibbles and dozens of people in a medium-size room clearly goes against the spirit of the regulations. But in any case, the government’s defence does not primarily focus on explaining how the rules had been followed, but rather seems to defend something it had done not after carefully considering the rules, but rather after following its usual strategy of considering that rules simply do not apply to those in power.
Therefore, regardless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of whatever party took place in government buildings last December, the political damage is immense. The continuing revelations about the government and PM’s behaviour during lock down restrictions and especially the leaked video of that mock press conference make it very hard to avoid Lord Ashworth’s conclusion following Javid’s rhetorical acrobatics that the government is simply “taking the p**s.”
The feeling that there is one rule for them, one for the rest of us is particularly damaging for a government that has come to power on the back of a distinctly populist strategy and Johnson portraying himself as a man of the people. Everything he does belies this political image. And slowly, people and his party start noticing.
The coming week may be a momentous one for the PM, as the continuing fallout from the Christmas party scandal, a possible extensive Tory backbench rebellion over new Covid restrictions, and the possibility of a byelection defeat could quite possibly damage his authority beyond repair.
A turning point: Johnson as a liability?
Recent polls suggest that the PM cannot get away with absolutely anything after all. In the past couple of weeks Labour have pulled ahead in terms of voting intension for essentially the first time this year, leading the conservatives by 8 points. That is not good news for Johnson who faces an important byelection next week Thursday in Shropshire North, the seat vacated by Owen Patterson in the sleaze scandal. The Liberal Democrats seem to stand a good chance of winning this seat from the Tories. There are voices suggesting that losing this formerly safe Tory seat might mean a non-confidence vote in Johnson could be staged soon after. Unsurprisingly, speculation and reporting on potential candidates for the PM’s succession have increased.
Further signs that Johnson has reached a turning point include the BBC’s more courageous reporting on the various scandals engulfing the government. Mishal Husain’s interview with Kit Malthouse was a refreshingly aggressive questioning of government behaviours that we haven’t seen in a while from journalists at the public broadcaster.
An equally, if not more, important sign that the Brexit process may have reached a turning point comes from the Express. An unusually critical article this week by Liam Doyle, starts with the following paragraph:
“Brexit, according to its backers, was meant to create endless opportunities. So far, however, the UK has failed to make the vote profitable, with the prospect of "global Britain" quickly fading according to recent data.”
These are unusually clear words from an unambiguously pro-Brexit paper. Moreover, one of the cheerleaders for Liz Truss, the paper now considers that the ‘[t]rade agreements negotiated by Ms Truss have done little to boost the UK's imports and exports[…].’ Of course, a swallow does not make a spring, but the change in tone in one of the staunchest pro-Brexit papers does seem remarkable. It may be another sign of the phenomenon described by Chris Grey this week of increasing numbers of actors disowning Brexit.
The limits of denial
It would seem that the negative effect of Brexit on the economy – in particular trade and investment – have become too obvious for even the most steadfast Brexiters to completely ignore or deny.
Indeed, the evidence of Brexit damage to the economy is piling up. This week the Independent reported a survey by the French Chamber of Great Britain that shows that an increasing number of member firms report problems with cross-Channel trade. The paper quotes Naomi Smith – CEO of Best for Britain – as saying ‘What the government once called teething problems have now become a chronic condition.’ These increasing delays at the borders are even more worrying when we consider border checks on imports from the EU will come into force in January and only 25% companies state that they are prepared for this further increase in trade obstacles.
UK in a Changing Europe, in its turn, published a new report on the impact of Brexit on trade in service, which outlines several ways in which Brexit has impacted the UK service industry and has led to increased trade barriers that affect service exports to the EU.
Similarly, the FT provides some rather shocking figures about business investment in the UK compared to other countries. The paper finds that ‘in the UK, business investment in the third quarter [of 2021] was still about 10 per cent below the level in the second quarter of 2016, when the country voted to leave the EU. Over the same period, it grew by 8 per cent in the eurozone and by nearly 20 per cent in the US.’ Of course, the steep drop in investment since 2016 means the government will seek to take credit for a comparatively stronger rebound in the UK than the EU in percentage terms when it comes, but this will be purely due to an extraordinary tax incentive for business investment and the lower baseline compared to other countries.
Brexit dividends: A smart border
Other trade-related Brexit news this week concerned the government’s announcement of trials next year of a so-called ‘smart customs border,’ which would allow it to reduce trade frictions by using technology to reduce border checks at the borders and have them take place in at warehouses and manufacturing sites instead.
Using technology to reduce trade frictions deriving from the new trade barriers created by Brexit has been a long-standing Brexiter counter-argument against suggestions that Brexit will inevitably cause trade frictions. As such, seeing some real developments in this respect is welcome news. Some trade experts predict that the UK will have one of the technologically most advanced borders in the world as a result. This can arguably be seen as a result of Brexit and therefore a rare ‘Brexit dividend.’ Although, it is of course not the case that the EU would have prevented the UK from adopting similar technology – indeed the EU too is moving into the direction of smart borders –, but because the situation created by hard Brexit does not leave the UK with any other option than trying and reduce trade barriers by investing in such technologies.
Yet, even if this is vaguely positive news, what is genuinely shocking is the timing for this reform: The ‘single trade window’ is expected to be in place by 2025 at the earliest. That is four years after Brexit took effect and another sign of a government utterly unprepared for Brexit reality.
NIP & FTAs
One effect of all the scandals involving the government is that the really important issues are being pushed into the background. Yet, important developments have taken place on various fronts.
Most importantly, there seems to have been a very considerable shift in the Government’s approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP). This week the government briefed the press about its softening stance on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issue. While it also insisted that the ECJ oversight of the NIP will need to be resolved eventually, it acknowledged that the issue goes beyond the negotiation mandate of the EU side in the NIP negotiations. This opens up an opportunity for compromise.
It seems likely that the change of heart was driven by Johnson rather than Frost and motivated not only by the PM having enough on his plate as it were. However, the increasingly robust stance that the US government and Congress are taking on the need to solve the NI issue certainly played a role. In a sign that Brexit has wrecked not only our relationships with our European neighbours, but also the ‘special relationship’ with the US, Trade Secretary Trevelyan used her US trip to threaten the US with retaliatory tariffs if the Biden administration refused to remove tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the UK. Put in context, this is a truly extraordinary statement given that leaving the EU was meant to open up new opportunities for Global Britain to strike trade deals with countries that are geographically further away, but allegedly culturally closer to Britain than continental Europe – in particular the US. Yet, one year on, it would seem that a trade deal with the US is all but impossible at this stage.
That may not be a bad thing of course, given that it becomes increasingly clear that the government’s strategy of concluding free trade agreements (FTA) with the sole goal of showing the public that Brexit is working is not in the interest of the country and its economy. A new report by the National Audit Office (NAO) notes important risks resulting from the speed at which the government pursues new trade deals. Among those risks are a lack of proper implementation of FTAs once concluded, which may affect the extent to which companies can really benefit from them. Another risk comes from “developing new domestic policy in sensitive areas such as agriculture and the environment at the same time as negotiating with new partners” while “the time available for consultation with Parliament, stakeholders and the wider public” is “compressed.” In other words, the government is pursuing new trade deals at a speed that makes it difficult to protect domestic interests and properly supporting their implementation. This makes perfect sense from a government perspective, given that FTAs are purely a symbol that is expected to illustrate new-found Brexit freedoms, but none – not even the government – probably really believes that there is any chance that these deals can be better than the ones obtained by the EU. So, there content does not really matter. What matters is that deals are being concluded and can be announced in the pro-Brexit press, as happened again this week with the Digital Economy Agreement with Singapore.
Long-term, of course, that strategy is going to backfire, as there are indications that in its pursuit of FTAs at any cost, the government weakens its own negotiating position by looking desperate and is willing to throw UK producers – such as sheep farmers – under the bus without hesitation.
Which way are we turning?
In the shadow of the scandals, Johnson continuous to push forward his agenda, most importantly and worryingly the reform of the legal system, which may see UK judges subject to increased political interference, a policing bill that would essentially criminalise protesters, and further privatisation of higher education this time by stripping the British Council of the contract to deliver the successor of the Erasmus student exchange programme and awarding it to the private outsourcing firm Capita, which has a track record of underdelivering on public contracts.
Johnson’s policies will make many people hope that the sense of Johnson’s premiership having entered its final phase may be correct. However, from a progressive and liberal point of view, Johnson’s removal may be a mixed blessing. The impact he has had on the Tory party has been transformative at a deeper level and the ideological reorientation of the party towards some type of fake illiberal populist Toryism will most likely remain after he has gone. This is particularly true if – as seems likely at the moment – he will be replaced by someone from his cabinet. Johnson is well-known for his intolerance of any dissenting voices in his cabinet. It seems hence likely that the people closest to him in government share much of his ideological views. In a most interesting interview, former Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve told Byline Times journalist Hardeep Matharu that ‘the attitude of the Government… is that parliamentary sovereignty means that a government with a majority can do absolutely whatever it likes.’ There is no indication that Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, and others who are being mentioned as possible Johnson successors, feel any differently about such crucial questions of democracy and liberalism than the PM himself.
Liz Truss seems particularly keen on putting herself in pole position for a possible leadership contest. However, a speech she delivered this week at Chatham House, has been dissected by Helene von Bismarck who demonstrates just how superficial, shallow, and vacuous the Foreign Secretary’s vision for ‘Global Britain’ is. Her hollow-sounding claims about Britain being at the forefront of forming a ‘network or liberty’ amongst countries of the ‘Free World’ are no different from Johnsonite slogans like ‘building back better’ or ‘levelling up.’ Indeed, as one of the co-authors of the book Britannia Unchained, Liz Truss has demonstrated that – just like Johnson – she seems to value rhetoric and ideology over substance.
The difference would be that with Truss or Sunak, the Opposition would be facing a more serious and competent person in running the government’s business. Not because the likely candidates are particularly serious or competent, but because the bar is so shockingly low. Moreover, the damage done to the country by Brexit and the pandemic is so great, that it would not take that much to deliver some improvement on the current situation, which a more competent politician than Johnson may well be able to do. While such a person may have a harder time retaining voters in the red-wall seats in the North of England, they would almost certainly provide fewer opportunities for attack by the opposition resulting from major blunders and scandals. Therefore, while removing Johnson from power may seem like an important goal in the interest of the UK’s democracy and society, a more competent but equally illiberal populist Tory PM who has enough time to make their mark before the next General Election may mean we will be stuck with this toxic brand of Toryism for longer.