Thread by @Usherwood

This illustrates a recurrent theme of late: technical/legal capacity doesn't match with political incentives or imperatives

1/

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1032173081769459713

Other examples abound, including:

- extension of Art.50
- a failed Meaningful Vote leading to renegotiation of WA
- using ECJ as arbiter in post-membership disputes

2/

In all cases, there's nothing of great technical difficulty, but the politics is too fraught or poisonous to allow it to occur

3/

Indeed, this mis-match has arguably been the central theme of the entire process.

Many paths were technically open, but political choices closed down many of them

4/

The archetype is this has been the UK gvt's red lines, which at a stroke closed down most of the possible resolutions, and which has continued to impede prompt outcomes

5/

But as that case also demonstrates, politics and technicalities do interact, and the latter do shape the former. Witness how those red lines have been finessed/bashed about to re-open options

6/

This is not simply a point of analysis, but also an important consideration for activists of all kinds: owning the political narrative matters more (certainly in short-run) than having technical means in place

7/

Clearly, in the UK, Leavers have been able to draw on the narrative of winning #EUref to advance their programme.

Those who wish to remain lost out as a result, especially with their long focus on overturning that vote

8/

The shift we've seen of late, to opening up a new debate about legitimising the WA through a new vote, is partly a recognition that this would allow for reframing the previous narrative, taking the Leavers' phrases and turning them against them

9/

Only if that is successful will the Q of technical capacity become more fully relevant

/end