So, the CON party conference and Brexit:
1/
1/
Back in Sept, there was much talk about this being a crunch point in the UK debate, as May would come under fire for Chequers and there would be scope for changes/realignments/whatever
2/
2/
Certainly that first bit has happened, with numerous op-eds over the weekend and assorted fringe events (inc. yesterday's Johnson speech)
3/
3/
But it's been quite contained.
The main stage hasn't seen serious disruption, in part because it's been easier just to trash-talk the EU than talk about internal divisions
4/
The main stage hasn't seen serious disruption, in part because it's been easier just to trash-talk the EU than talk about internal divisions
4/
From what we know of May's speech today, she's not going to change tack on Chequers, even as she scrabbles around for non-Brexit policy to burnish her credentials with the faithful
5/
5/
So, two key things to take from all this.
6/
6/
First, the 'chuck Chequers' brigade aren't dying on this particular hill.
If the aim was to ambush May and force major change in policy and/or get her to step aside, then this was not the way to do it
7/
If the aim was to ambush May and force major change in policy and/or get her to step aside, then this was not the way to do it
7/
The very strong impression is of people waiting for a better opportunity to move in, having laid the groundwork for "I said it wasn't a good policy"
I still think May's safe until she's ratified a WA package and probably until the UK leaves the EU in March 2019
8/
I still think May's safe until she's ratified a WA package and probably until the UK leaves the EU in March 2019
8/
Again, it's that uncertainty about who could/would replace May, plus sufficient awareness of Art.50 to know that if they get their plan to replace Chequers, then it will become subject to the compromises of negotiations. Why step into that?
9/
9/
The second big thing is that May is fundamentally wedded to Chequers (rather, to what she can call 'Chequers'), so the only way she'll step away from that is by removing her from office (and even then)
10/
10/
In part, this is her principled view: she seems to genuinely feel this is both viable and attractive as a model.
In part, there is nothing else to bring forward that looks any better for meeting those conditions
11/
In part, there is nothing else to bring forward that looks any better for meeting those conditions
11/
Importantly, May does also seem to recognise that the final settlement will move and that'll include changing parts of Chequers. However, she might still be able to call it 'Chequers', given that the Political Declaration is unlikely to elaborate much
12/
12/
So the conference appears to have changed little at this stage (unless May pulls a surprise rabbit from her hat today (which isn't really her style)), except maybe to remind the EU27 that May looks like the safest pair of hands
13/
13/
Perhaps more critical will be the next 7 days
Next Wed, the EU publishes a draft Pol Dec, so we'll get to see how much Chequers is(n't) there and whether the UK has found a way to start addressing the backstop issue in the WA
14/
Next Wed, the EU publishes a draft Pol Dec, so we'll get to see how much Chequers is(n't) there and whether the UK has found a way to start addressing the backstop issue in the WA
14/
If that looks bad for the UK, then we'll have a much better test of whether CONs actually want to remove May and her policy
I'm guessing not
/end
I'm guessing not
/end
