Quick thoughts on possible impact of a new Tory leader on Brexit policy
tl;dr probably minimal, but some risks still exist
1/
Just as any post-Johnson leader will not want to be defined by Covid, so they are even less likely to return to Brexit as a hot topic: it's of the past, doesn't switch on many voters and risks inflaming backbench
2/
So you'd imagine that route one would be quiet diplomacy, not too dissimilar from current position: speak firmly, but don't upset the apple cart (or trigger Art.16) and hope it settles down
3/
However, precisely because it's less central as an issue and because most obvious contenders weren't forged in the fires of #EURef, there's a risk someone starts a bidding war in a leadership contest about who can talk/act toughest, to sharpen up their credentials
4/
Think Cameron and EPP membership in 2005 and how that played out: low salience for him, but emboldening for eurosceptics
5/
So non-negligible chance that UK stumbles into a new round of aggro with EU, just because of internal party dynamics
Which would be in keeping
6/
Of course, also possible that a new leader might come with a more considered view, but that's really unlikely right now, given who's on manoeuvres and the state of the party
7/
In sum: more of the same, whatever happens
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good point to revisit this, esp as Frost was already heading for door. If Johnson is setting policy then more accommodating line might stick, but now (as then) big challenge is backbench revolt
Johnson's standing with MPs is clearly less than it was a fortnight ago, so does revolt potential mean he picks a hard Brexiter (and eoukd that person what to get him out of a hole? Or be allowed to make their own policy choices) or are we in 1922 territory?
Track record tells us Johnson would struggle to give up control [sic] of Brexit policy, so finding new minister who is both unimpeachable for ERG types and pliable for No.10 is going to be pretty much impossible: eg Baker has already distanced himself
Frost's op-ed this morning revisits the UK position that the NIP isn't working and negotiations haven't found a solution, so Art.16 remains on the table. But let's parse his comments on the CJEU for a bit
If we follow line that UK wants COP26 out of the way, then next week it likely moment of decision
Negotiations aren't moving, so it's time to sh*t or get off the pot with this
2/
UK knows it can't leave Art.16 out there much longer, both because it's talked up availability/necessity of its use and because there's already been much delay
Absent any big EU move on NIP (on top of what they already did), UK has to show this isn't stuck in the snow
3/
The suspension provisions under Art.772 aren't simple or a free-for-all, as you have to make a strong case for their use and you're bound to be proportionate
2/
By contrast, the general (Art.779) and Part (Art.591/692) provisions on termination don't need any justifications or thresholds, or even to talk about it, so they're much less liable to challenge
3/