Brexit: Do Johnson, Gove & Cummings have a cunning plan?

Do Johnson, Gove & Cummings have a cunning plan? Honestly mate, I haven’t got a fucking clue. No one has. Maybe not even them.

No, it’s a mug’s game making predictions about what may happen between now and Halloween – or, more to the point, between now and the EU Council meeting on 17-18 October, at which our fate will most likely come into sharp focus, if not actually get sealed.

However, we do know a few things. And these give us some guide as to what might just happen, and what probably won’t happen.

The first thing we know is that, over the past three years, Johnson has had a ring-side seat as Theresa May’s place in the history books shrivelled to nothing more than being one of the names in the hat – along with Gordon Brown and Johnson’s erstwhile Bullingdon Club wank-buddy, David Cameron – for the accolade of ‘worst prime minister, ever’.

Does anyone seriously think that – having now read or listened to the civil service’s confidential briefings on the likely impact of ‘no deal’ – a man who sees himself as the 21st Century’s Winston Churchill is about to risk a similar fate by allowing the UK to crash out of the EU with no deal? Because, while Johnson may not know for sure just how bad ‘no deal’ would be, he (or Cummings) must know it could be very, very bad indeed.

And, as our former ambassador to the EU, Ivan Rogers, says of those who think that, “if we just have the guts to walk away”, the EU27 will “come running for a series of mini-deals [assuring] full trading continuity in all key sectors on basically unchanged Single Market and Customs Union terms”:

I don’t know what tablets these people are taking, but I must confess I wish I were on them.

So, were crashing out to prove as bad as most sensible people expect, even someone as slippery as Johnson would then struggle to avoid being blamed for the economic and social chaos. It’s one thing for 50-something men in Essex to fantasise about World War II, but quite another for them to find themselves living through a realistic re-enactment.

No, that is all too risky. Johnson has schemed and back-stabbed a long, long time to become Prime Minister, and he’s surely not going to risk having his name thrown into that hat alongside May, Cameron and Brown after just a few months. Johnson wants five or even up to ten years in Downing Street (I imagine any longer would be too much like hard work, when there are spondoolies to be made from the memoir/diaries and lecture tours).

All of which also means that Johnson is unlikely to engineer a general election much before he has ‘delivered’ Brexit – or, at least, before he is able to claim that he has almost delivered Brexit (more on this below). As both 2015 and 2017 demonstrated, general election campaigns have a habit of not going to plan, and if by polling day it’s looking as if Brexit might somehow not happen after all, the Brexit Party might well burn the Tories alive and so inadvertently hand the keys of Downing Street to the “dreadful hearty beast”, Jeremy Corbyn, or to the Remainer wet dream of a stuffed and mounted Gnu led by Jo Swinson, Ken Clarke or Caroline Lucas. On 6 August, Mujtaba Rahman of Eurasia Group reported that “Johnson has told his inner circle he cannot risk an election before Brexit is delivered”, and “we think his view has been reinforced by [the] Brecon & Radnorshire by-election.” No shit, Sherlock.

G-no, g-no, g-no, Johnson’s not that daft. And Cummings certainly isn’t. However, with a majority of just one, and with further by-elections and even possible defections not far beyond the horizon, we know that Johnson does need to have a general election soonish. He just needs to be reasonably confident that that election will deliver him the majority he needs to enjoy at least five years larking about in Downing Street.

With ‘no deal’ ruled out, this means Johnson needs a deal with the EU27. It’s pretty clear he’s not going to get a new deal (and, at the moment, he’s not even trying). But there is plenty of scope for last-minute, high drama negotiations to produce lots of pretty ribbons – in the form of amendments and/or additions to the (essentially meaningless) Political Declaration that comes free with the Withdrawal Agreement-based, Blindfold Brexit deal bequeathed to us by Theresa May and Olly Robbins – for Johnson and the EU27 to tie around that old deal at the EU Council meeting on 17-18 October.

[Addendum, 21 August: Funnily enough, this week, German chancellor Angel Merkel was reported as saying, during a trip to Iceland, that “on the backstop issue, this is a question of the Political Declaration on [the future relationship]. There is no need to reopen the [Withdrawal Agreement] for a practical solution.”]

Nigel Farage, Mark Francois, and the DUP would of course blow a gasket. BETRAYAL! But the DUP have a price for everything, and Johnson has a nodding dog Chancellor to pay it. No one really listens to Mark Francois, other than BBC Newsnight producers and presenters. And what reasonable person could deny that the bloody French and Germans have put poor old Boris – who tried his best, unlike that wimp Theresa May – in an impossible situation? (I’m being sardonic here, you do realise that, yes?)

So, on the Monday after the EU Council meeting, with just 10 days left on James ‘not so’ Cleverly’s countdown clock, Johnson calls a general election (and immediately dissolves Parliament) on a platform of ‘Back me and get the only possible Brexit six weeks from now – golly gosh, terribly sorry about the short delay, old bean, nothing I could do, bloody Frogs! – or sack me and get the chaos of Corbyn or a Gnu’. The EU27 agree to a short, technical extension of the Article 50 period, to ‘allow the democratic processes to play out’. And Nigel Farage’s frantic claim that Johnson hasn’t actually delivered Brexit leaves him looking a bit of a party pooper, given we’re only talking about a delay of a few weeks. It will all be over by Christmas!

Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, you say? Yep, that went well on 18 & 19 April 2017, when literally everyone assumed that Theresa May was on course to crush both Labour and the Remainer saboteurs. Believe it or not, political turkeys cannot resist voting for a general election Christmas.

Johnson would never get a beribboned Withdrawal Agreement through the Commons, you say? Well, he would if he’s just won a general election on a platform of leaving the EU on such a basis before Christmas. He’d have the necessary majority, and a clear mandate.

But … surely Downing Street “stands ready to do whatever is necessary to bring about Brexit on 31 October – deal or no deal”? Well, maybe. Or maybe that’s just fake gnus.* As David Hayward noted in a must-read Twitter thread a few days ago:

Where there’s smoke, there’s not necessarily fire. [And] there are great clouds of ‘no deal’ smoke: Michael Gove, special meetings (twice a week and through August – who can imagine such sacrifice!), a £100m pamphlet, all manner of vim and vigour, freshly polished shoes, and Dominic Raab.

But. None of this amounts to much more than someone shouting “squirrel!”, very loudly, all the time. There’s tons of real work to do if you’re serious about ‘no deal’. And none of this is it.

Indeed. The most substantial proposal to come out of Michael Gove’s bi-weekly meetings so far is to make 1 November a Bank Holiday. Yes, really. This is just play-acting. As David Hayward continues in that Twitter thread:

If I was cynical, I might consider the whole non farrago (think smouldering wet leaves) a media management exercise targeted at the worshipful and the gullible to generate regular EXCLUSIVES to sustain a ‘lots of high energy stuff going on’ narrative.

Who’s the audience for this story? It’s not the EU27. The idea that the the EU negotiating team is going to be persuaded of ‘do or die’ by a bit of pamphleteering and Dominc Raab is for the birds.

In the words of the master of fake gnus, Donald Trump: “What you’re seeing and reading is not what is happening”.

So, we’re into a late November or early December election – Tory campaign slogan: “Help make Christmas come early this year!” – and the best we Remoaners can offer is a somewhat defeatist PV100 tactical voting target list to “help install pro-[second] referendum MPs or defeat MPs or candidates who oppose a second public vote”. But many potential pro-remain voters don’t want a second referendum – only about 1.3 million have signed the various PV petitions, but more than 6 million signed the ‘revoke’ petition in just a few weeks. And Caroline Lucas – who invented the People’s Vote – has already given the game away by saying she and other supposed democrats would ignore any second referendum vote for ‘leave’ in any case. Doh!

In other words, we’re back to July 2016, and to journalists demanding to know of PV-supporting candidates: “How many referendums do you want to have before you get the right answer?” That wouldn’t win a snap election against a super-charged Johnson and his extravagantly beribboned Brexit deal. And, if you can’t win that election, there ain’t gonna be any second referendum, period. (So, er, you may as well go for broke and stand on a platform of ‘revoke’ – just saying). But hey, at least the PVers would finally have answered the question of what options to put on the PV ballot paper.

Sounds implausible? Of course it does. And, if that election were to produce yet another hung Parliament, then just maybe the PVers would still be in with a shout. But how confident are you that it would produce another hung Parliament, in the circumstances I’ve just outlined?

Whatever, run me through your scenario, and I’ll tell you how it is just as implausible. Dominic Grieve and Oliver Letwin have a cunning plan for MPs to ‘take back control’, you say? What, like all their previous cunning plans? They went well. And now Grieve and Letwin are up against a united and super-charged government machine, not the near-dead shambles led (or not) by Theresa May. As constitutional expert Professor Mark Elliott of Cambridge University concludes:

The Supreme Court’s Miller judgment handed Parliament a golden opportunity to take control of the Brexit process. That opportunity was immediately squandered by parliamentarians who — for fear of being castigated as “enemies of the people” — fell over themselves to write the Government a blank cheque when they enacted the Notification of Withdrawal Act. That Act handed the Government complete discretion over when Article 50 should be triggered and provided Parliament with absolutely no instruments of control over the ensuing process. Ever since, Parliament has been playing catch-up.

As the autumn unfolds, and as the cliff-edge beckons, we will see whether the majority of parliamentarians who are opposed to a no-deal Brexit can recover the situation. Parliament does have options open to it. But those options are limited in legal terms — and decidedly so in political terms.

Or Grieve, Letwin and other Tory MPs will help vote Johnson down in a Vote of No Confidence in early September? Really? Well, with Labour selfishly – but predictably, perhaps even inevitably – refusing to become part of or support a Gnu, the most that could come of that is, er, a general election. Which, under my scenario, Johnson would call a few weeks later in any case. And, er, the Prime Minister gets to set the date of polling day. This would even save Johnson the minor trouble of having to explain why he’d changed his mind on calling an election. Genius.

[Addendum, 21 August: As for that elusive Gnu, I think Marina Hyde hit the nail on the head in her regular column in last Saturday’s Guardian:

Three years on from the Brexit vote, what best crystallises where we are? Perhaps that nowhere even close to 326 politicians can unify on what would constitute a government of national unity. The Liberal Democrats will do anything to stop Brexit, except for the things they won’t; Labour would love to stop the Tories’ version of Brexit, but first they just want to look busy and set this quick trap for the Lib Dems; the Greens want the headlines for a day and they’ve got a plan just batshit enough to secure them; and so on. Dominic Cummings must be cackling. The only worse form of unity was a Mitford.

So while it’s positive to have had leadership of the prospective government of national unity whittled down to just under 16 million candidates, it does feel a little bit near the business end of things for politicians to be indulging in the weapons-grade wankery we’ve seen this week.]

Whatever, the bottom line is, something that some or even many people currently think implausible, has to happen. And it will happen. Buckle up!

* Many thanks to the ever pun-ready @wonklifebalance for that one.

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Sharp fall in waiting time for next garbage article on ET claims

As if driving around Madrid airport four times trying, and failing, to find the car rental return depot wasn’t enough to dampen my spirits at the end of my family holiday on Monday, my extended hours in the departure lounge were soon darkened further by a friendly #ukemplaw tweep alerting me to an article in the Guardian, headlined “Employment Tribunal claims taking eight months to be heard”.

Employment tribunal claims in the UK are taking an average of eight months to be heard, as the system struggles under government funding cuts and a surge in complaints.

A report [sic] found that waiting times have risen for the fourth year in a row, meaning the average delay between a claim being lodged and an employment tribunal taking place is now 237 days. This compares with 207 days last year, according to research [sic] by employment law firm GQ Littler.

Raoul Parekh, a partner at GQ Littler, said: “Employment tribunals will soon reach breaking point. Eight-month delays are just not sustainable and can be very challenging for both parties involved.”

Yes, it’s my good friends GQ Littler, who modestly describe themselves as “the world’s leading employment law firm”. And, according to the latest set of official ET quarterly statistics, published by the Ministry of Injustice on 13 June, it is true that, in the last quarter of 2018-19 (i.e. January to March 2019), the average age on disposal of single ET claims/cases was 33 weeks (7.6 months) – six weeks more than in the same period in 2017-18. But I’m afraid the article is not going to win Guardian journalist Kalyeena Makortoff the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism. Because the rest of the passage quoted above – and so the premise of the whole article – is little more than garbage.

There is, of course, no ‘report’ by GQ Littler as such. Or, if there is, they are keeping it surprisingly well hidden (they have not responded to my request for a link to it). So I have no way of knowing the basis for their claim that “waiting times have risen for the fourth year in a row”, or where the figures of “237 days” and “207 days” come from – the official statistics give the average age on disposal only in weeks.

However, I do know – again, from the official statistics published by the Ministry of Injustice, which are freely available online, even to Guardian journalists – that the average age on disposal of single ET claims/cases was 41 weeks in 2014-15, 29 weeks in 2015-16, 28 weeks in 2016-18, 27 weeks in 2017-18, and 30 weeks in 2018-19. So, er, waiting times have not “risen for the fourth year in a row”.

To make it easy for Guardian journalists, as well as for lawyers at the solar system’s leading employment law firm, those figures are even collated in this handy answer of 9 July 2019 to a Parliamentary Question tabled by the shadow justice secretary, Richard Burgon MP. And, if an average waiting time of 30 weeks is “unsustainable”, goodness knows how everyone coped in 2014-15, when it was 41 weeks.

It goes without saying that an average figure does not tell the whole story: an average age on disposal of 30 weeks (6.9 months) is entirely consistent with some cases taking much longer than that. Also, multiple claimant cases tend to take very much longer: according to the official statistics, in 2018-19, the average age on disposal of such cases was 126 weeks (29 months). But look on the bright side: in 2017-18, it was 245 weeks (56.5 months, or 4.7 years), and back in 2014-15 it was 184 weeks (42.5 months).

In short, it has for some months been abundantly clear from anecdotal evidence that the failure on the part of the Ministry of Injustice – until very recently – to respond to the entirely predictable rise in the number of ET cases following the abolition of fees in July 2017, with an appropriate increase in judicial and administrative resources, is currently resulting in very long delays in the resolution of many cases. However, things are not quite as bad and “unsustainable” as GQ Littler and the Guardian suggest. And Kalyeena Makortoff might have had a better chance of bagging that Pulitzer Prize if she had at least acknowledged that, in April this year, 58 new ET judges (51.5 FTE) belatedly joined the ET system. They may or may not prove to be the cavalry – time will tell – but they will help.

On the other hand, it is now clear that the waiting time for the next garbage press article based on a non-existent research ‘report’ by GQ Littler has fallen sharply. As previously noted on this blog, in early June the galaxy’s leading employment law firm got its name in the papers by wrongly claiming there has been “a big jump in [ET] pregnancy discrimination claims in the era of #MeToo”.

Then, just four weeks later, it scored big with near-identical articles in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the Metro, and the Times about an alleged “spike” in the number of ET sex discrimination claims in, er, the era of #MeToo:

Revelations of sexual harassment in Hollywood and business contributed to a 69 per cent jump in the number of sex discrimination claims brought to British employment tribunals in the year to March, according to an employment law firm.

Research [sic] by GQ Littler showed that 9,340 claims were lodged in tribunals in Great Britain in 2018-19, compared with just 5,522 in the year to March 2018. The spike follows revelations by women, in what became known as the #MeToo movement, of sexual harassment by powerful men.

The claims brought to employment tribunals cover myriad forms of sexual discrimination, including in hiring and other forms not related to harassment. The statistics do not record the form of sex discrimination alleged.

However, Hannah Mahon, a partner at GQ Littler, attributed the spike largely to a big increase in the public airing of sexual harassment claims. “It’s a much more public thing now,” Ms Mahon said of awareness of sexual harassment. “People are starting to understand their rights and feeling less shy about speaking out.”

I really can’t be bothered to write many words about this non-existent “jump” in ET sex discrimination claims, but here’s a chart (based on the very same official statistics ‘researched’ by GQ Littler) that is pretty conclusive about the nature of that “69 per cent” increase in claims in 2018-19, I think.

Suffice to say, in each of June and August 2018, there were one or more large multiple claimant cases. We can see this from the (freely available) official statistics: in August, for example, all but 298 of the unusual spike of 3,083 claims were lodged in just one region (Scotland). Similary, in June, all but 374 of the unusual spike of 1,888 claims were lodged in, er, Scotland. And, in the same months, Scotland also saw unusual spikes in equal pay claims. Doh!

But such multiple claimant case-based spikes do not a rising trend make. And, if there isn’t a rising trend, it can’t possibly be explained by #MeToo – not even by a legal eagle like Hannah Mahon. Indeed, if we take the figures for Scotland out of the equation, in 2018-19 the number of ET sex discrimination claims fell by 7.7%, from 5,269 to 4,864. I wonder what the universe’s leading employment law firm has to say about that.

And now, this week, we have “ET waiting times have risen for the fourth year in a row”. What will next week bring us from GQ Littler? Who cares? But, while we wait, here’s a nice photo of the Wonky family enjoying some cervezas in Caceres.

Posted in Justice, Workers' rights | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

ET claims: the ultimate chart show

A few days ago, on this blog, I noted the “big jump” in the number of articles in the #HR specialist press and elsewhere about the number of employment tribunal claims/cases, all featuring an eye-catching but totally rubbish theory by some law firm trying to drum up business from employers.

It’s an old trick, and I’m sure last week’s dire examples won’t be the last. So, having finally worked out how to change obscure settings on my Mac to enable me to access the monthly ET statistics as well as the quarterly ones – some time ago, the Ministry of Injustice changed the operating system used to publish the statistics, and the new system is not Mac user-friendly – I’ve decided to populate this post with up-to-date charts of the monthly number of ET claims in each jurisdiction. Then, if someone approaches you with a fishy story about an ‘explosion’ or ‘surge’ of claims in any one jurisdiction, you can quickly check it out here. You’re welcome.

In each chart, the red bar marks the introduction of ET fees, in July 2013, and the green bar marks the abolition of those fees, in July 2017. Note that, where a bar goes off the scale, that is usually because it is way off the scale (these jurisdictional charts include all the claims in multiple claimant cases, remember). And, if the law firm (or their PR) is pitching you a story based on a comparison between a period wholly or partly between the red and green bars, and a period to the right of the green bar, then it is bollox. Because all the comparison will be showing is the impact of the abolition of ET fees in July 2017.

Any assertion of a current and significant increase in claims in any one jurisdiction needs to be supported by a comparison between two separate periods (each at least six months long) to the right of the green bar – that is, two periods subsequent to July 2017. Indeed, they should be subsequent to September or even December 2017, as in many jurisdictions it took several months for the impact of the abolition of fees to be fully realised.

I will update each chart every three months, as the latest set of quarterly statistics is published. And I will (probably) get better at formatting the charts to make them more consistent in appearance. Please feel free to use them any way you see fit. Because we can only have a proper debate about access to justice in the workplace if that debate is informed by evidence, not by silly headlines and proxy advertising in media outlets.

The next chart shows the sum of all discrimination-related claims (i.e. age, disability, race, religion/belief, sex, sexual orientation and pregnancy detriment). From this, we can see that Britain is becoming a fairer country. Or something.

And just look at the number of unfair dismissal claims exploding!

But – whoa! – is this a ‘growth industry’? Someone tell GQ Littler! They could get a piece in The Times on the back of this.

Don’t ask me what’s going on with WTD claims. Ask Sean Jones, or someone like that.

Posted in Justice, Workers' rights | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

ET claim statistics: No alarms, no surprises

Three months ago, on this blog, I rashly suggested that Employment Tribunal (ET) claim/case numbers may at last have settled at a new, post-ET fees ‘normal’. And the latest set of quarterly statistics, published by the Ministry of Injustice this morning, does not contradict that assessment. At least, I don’t think it does. Contrary to what you may have read in The Times, far from ‘continuing to surge’, in four of the last five quarters the number of single claims/cases has been somewhere in the narrow range of 8,500 to 9,000. Time will tell.

And, in some jurisdictions, the ‘new normal’ is a lot smaller than the ‘old normal’. Here’s one of the high volume jurisdictions, unfair dismissal, for example.

And here’s breach of contract. Not much evidence of that ‘continuing surge’ here.

Similarly, the latest set of Acas statistics on early conciliation (for Q3 of 2018/19), published by Acas a few weeks ago, tends to support my contention in March that, broadly speaking, the number of ET single claims/cases has reverted to the level we might have expected it to be at, had ET fees and Acas early conciliation not been introduced in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

All very tedious. Hardly worth updating the above charts, really. No one pays much attention to the quarterly ET statistics, these days. Which may or may not explain why, earlier this week, two law firms were back to that old trick of Getting Our Firm’s Name in the Press By Issuing A Press Release With An Eye-catching But Totally Rubbish Story About ET Claim Numbers.

First up was Fox & Partners, with a story in Personnel Today based on their ‘analysis’ of the official ET statistics for the calendar years 2017 and 2018 – which have been publicly available since 14 March – and headlined “Sharp rise in disability discrimination claims at tribunals”. This states:

There were 6,550 disability discrimination claims at employment tribunals [in 2018], a 37% rise on the year before (4,770), according to Ministry of Justice figures.

The data represents a growth rate eight times faster than the increase in total claims over the same period.

According to employment law specialist Fox & Partners the explosion of disability discrimination cases is not only down to the simple fact that tribunal fees were abolished in 2017, but an increased willingness of employees to bring claims relating to mental health issues.

Fox & Partners said many claims of workplace disability discrimination related to the impact of high levels of stress and depression on an individual’s work.

And it is true that, according to the official statistics available since 14 March, in 2018 the number of disability discrimination ET claims increased by 37%. And it is true that the total number of claims – that is, the combined total of single claims and all the claims in multiple claimant cases – increased by only 4% (from 115,334 to 119,896). So, yes, in 2018 the number of disability discrimination claims grew eight times faster than the total number of claims.

However, as any fule kno, the total number of claims is pretty much worthless as a base measure, because it is so volatile (due to the varying influence of large multiple claimant cases). For example, there were 53,696 claims in the second quarter of 2018 (Q1 of 2018/19), but only 16,984 in the fourth quarter (Q3 of 2018/19). And, had Fox & Partners compared the financial years 2017/18 and 2018/19, instead of the calendar years 2017 and 2018, they would have had to report that the total number of claims increased by 12%. But that would not have helped stand up their ‘story’ of an “explosion” in the number of disability discrimination claims.

A much more meaningful base measure is the number of ET cases (that is, the combined total of single claims/cases and multiple claimant cases) – which increased by 73% in the calendar year 2018, compared to 2017. And, again, as any fule kno, that 73% increase was wholly due to the abolition of ET fees in July 2017.

So, the supposedly massive 37% increase in disability discrimination claims in 2018 was in fact only about half the overall increase in ET cases. In other words, it was well below the overall trend. As the following chart shows, the reality is that the number of disability discrimination claims is still some way short of its pre-fees level, and pretty much flatlined throughout 2018 (when, according to Fox & Partners, it was ‘exploding’).

It would have been more instructive for Fox & Partners (or the journalist at Personnel Today) to compare disability discrimination claims with other jurisdictions. Here, for example, is sexual orientation discrimination claims, the number of which rose by a humungous 69% in 2018, compared to 2017 – an “explosion” almost twice the size of that in disability discrimination claims. We await Fox & Partners’ theory for this one.

The number of unfair dismissal claims (see chart, above) increased by 39% in 2018. And here’s another chart showing the number of race discrimination claims, which rose by 34%  – that is, by much the same amount as disability discrimination claims. I could go on.

In short, there has not been a “sharp rise” – let alone an “explosion” – in the number of disability discrimination ET claims, other than as part of the across-the-board increase in ET claims/cases due to the abolition of ET fees in July 2017. And – as there has been no such ‘explosion’ – it cannot possibly be explained by any “increased willingness of employees to bring claims relating to mental health issues”. Well done, Fox & Partners.

I barely had time to tweet out my ire in relation to the Personnel Today article, when along came another from People Management, headlined “Experts ‘surprised’ by rise in pregnancy discrimination claims”. This states:

The number of employment tribunal (ET) claims involving allegations of pregnancy discrimination has risen by more than half in a year, raising questions over whether employers are keeping up with a change in culture around maternity rights.

In 2017/18, the number of pregnancy-related ET claims reached 1,357 – an increase of 56% on 2016/17, according to official figures.

This rate of growth was over twice as fast as the overall increase in the number of tribunal cases, which rose almost 20% over the same period, from 143,950 in 2016/17 to 172,730 in 2017/18.

Claire McCartney, senior policy adviser at the CIPD [sic], said that while the removal of tribunal fees may have accounted for some of the increase, there has also been a greater awareness of maternity and paternity rights, and an increased willingness to make claims.

Sound familiar? The very same worthless base measure (albeit for different time periods), and same ‘increased willingness to make claims’. People Management is the official journal of the CIPD, which you’d think would be above such shenanigans. But hang on, there’s a law firm with a theory!

Sophie Vanhegan, partner at [the law firm] GQ Littler, which compiled the figures [sic], said she was surprised to see a spike in pregnancy-related cases.

“I would generally say most sophisticated employers are very, very careful as to what they do when they’re dealing with pregnant employees in the first place,” she said. “There are obviously employers out there who have not been as rigorous in trying to ensure they deal with such employees lawfully in the past.”

Vanhegan attributed the increase in claims largely to the #MeToo movement, which had made women more aware of unacceptable behaviour, especially related to pregnancy. “Things that may have simply just been accepted in the past are now being seen as unacceptable and people are feeling more confident in being able to challenge them,” she said.

Vanhegan added there had been a “time lag” between the movement taking off and business culture changing. “We’re now two years since the #MeToo movement really exploded and I think that takes a little time to trickle down from the Hollywood-type arena in which it launched, into normal workplaces.”

Sure, in 2017/18, the number of pregnancy detriment ET claims increased by 56%, compared to 2016/17. But, thanks to the abolition of ET fees, the overall number of ET cases increased by 60%. So, what does this tell us, apart from the impact of fees? Answer: bog all.

We certainly can’t conclude, as Sophie Vanhegan of GQ Littler does, that the 56% increase in 2017/18 was “largely” due to the #MeToo movement – which did not even start, in the US, until half-way through 2017/18, so we couldn’t really expect to see much if any impact on ET claims in the UK that year in any case. Indeed, the end of 2017/18 – the period chosen by GQ Littler to evidence their ‘story’ – was only five months, not two years, after “the #MeToo movement really exploded [in Hollywood]”. But here’s Caroline Baker of GQ Littler doubling down in The Times, and on Twitter.








Furthermore, GQ Littler had access to three quarters worth of data after 2017/18 – why do they not cite that data? It’s been publicly available for months. Could it be that – as the following chart shows – that data does not support their contention that increased awareness of pregnancy discrimination is leading to an increase in claims? Sure, there was a notable increase in Q3 of 2018/19 (i.e. October to December 2018), which you might have expected GQ Little to cite in support of their ‘theory’. But the figure for Q4, which is among the set of statistics published this morning, suggests that increase was a blip, not part of a trend. [Indeed, see Update, below]

No, these ‘sharp rises’, ‘explosions and ‘increases that surprise experts’ are just the kind of garbage that PR people manufacture (partly by careful selection of a dodgy base line) to try and get journalists – who should know better, but invariably don’t – to pick up their press release. As already noted above, it’s an old trick, but journalists in the supposedly ‘specialist’ human resources press keep falling for it.

And – lo! – GQ Littler (a trading name of law firm GQ Employment Law LLP) has form! Whodathunkit? Yes, back in July 2014, GQ managed to get a whole article in The Times, no less, thanks to their claim that “while other kinds of tribunal claim are falling [due to the fees introduced in July 2013] … sex discrimination claims are now the biggest growth industry among workplace lawsuits because of uncapped compensation.” As I noted at the time: “WTF? Hidden amongst all [the] evident evisceration of ET claims [by ET fees], there is not just a growth industry, but several growth industries?” Dear reader, you will not be surprised when I tell you there were in fact no growth industries.

None of this is to say that there is not “an increased willingness of employees to bring [ET] claims relating to mental health issues” or “a greater awareness of maternity and paternity rights, and an increased willingness to make claims”. But there is absolutely no evidence to support either theory in the official ET statistics, however you cook them. Indeed, pregnancy detriment claims are not the only kind of ET claim to have fallen in Q4 of 2018/19 – so did disability discrimination claims. But no doubt Fox & Partners have a theory for that, to go alongside the one we can expect from GQ Littler and the CIPD.

Update [15 June]: Having spent two hours this morning working out how to change obscure settings on my Mac to enable me to access the monthly statistics as well as the quarterly ones – some time ago, the MoJ changed the operating system used to publish the data, and the new system is not user-friendly – I can now confirm that Q3 was indeed a blip, due to a megablip in October 2018.

There are only two credible explanations for such a megablip: (1) a data input error by HMCTS (and I’ve seen many over the years); or (2) one or more large-ish multiple claimant cases (which, in this jurisdiction, are rare). Either way, for the purposes of this debate, we can safely ignore October 2018.

From the monthly chart, we can also see that the peak in Q1 of 2018/19 was due to a smaller megablip in June 2018. Leave aside/iron out that month, as well as October 2018, and we can see that pregnancy discrimination claims have pretty much flatlined since autumn 2017, i.e. since soon after the abolition of ET fees in July 2017.

In short, there is absolutely no evidence in the official ET stats to support Claire McCartney of CIPD’s assertion of “an increased willingness to make [ET] claims”.

As for Sophie Vanhegan and Caroline Baker of GQ Littler’s assertion that this non-existent “big jump” in pregnancy discrimination ET claims is due to the #MeToo movement, that is what we policy analysts call – and I’m sorry to use a technical term – utter bollox.

Anyway, if you’re reading this, and your name is Sophie Vanhegan or Caroline Baker, or if you are Peter Cheese of CIPD, please do feel free to post a comment below.

Posted in Justice, Workers' rights | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Brexit: a progress report to the EU27

Back in April, when the EU27 agreed to grant the UK another six and a bit months to decide what Brexit means, they wisely thought it prudent to use their regular Council meeting on 20-21 June to take a rain-check on how the UK is using the time that Donald Tusk famously urged it not to waste.

That EU Council meeting is the week after next. Yes, doesn’t time fly when you’re having fun allowing Nigel Farage to undermine your centuries-old democracy!

So, how might the conversation between the UK and the EU27 go?

EU27: Thank you for coming in. We really appreciate you taking the time to update us on how you are using the Article 50 extension agreed on 11 April to, er, sort out Brexit.

UK: Hey, no problemo! Everything is fine!

EU27: It is? Maybe you could expand a little?

UK: Of course! Well, it’s been a busy time. We held the European Parliament elections, just like you told us we had to. We Brits always play by the rules, ha ha!

EU27: Yes, we know. And, er, how did that go?

UK: Fabulous! We re-elected Nigel Farage. His Brexit Party got 32% of the vote! And we elected Ann Widdecombe! She’s so funny, you’re gonna love her! We’re thinking she might be good for the Equalities Committee. Is there a vacancy?

EU27: Er, we’ll come back to you on that. Anything else?

UK: You bet! We dumped our Prime Minister! She fucking cried! It was hilarious. You should have seen the memes on Twitter!

EU27: Yes, we saw them. But who is in charge now?

UK: Fuck knows! Could be Boris, could be Govey. Or, if you’re really lucky, Dominic ‘space cadet’ Raab – we know how much you love him! Though let’s be honest: Rory’s done some fantastic selfies in Kew Gardens and other places. He walked across Afghanistan! And he was in MI6! But what a great bunch. Four of them did PPE at Oxford! And Esther has an MA in Radio Journalism. So, everything’s gonna be fine. Just chill.

EU27: Okaaaay. Anything else you’d like to tell us about?

UK: Yeah, we had Donald Trump and his entire family to stay. Totally fuck-off banquet – took four days just to lay the table. Donald agrees with Nigel, who says we should leave the EU on 31 October, deal or no deal. And Donald loves Boris, who also says we should leave the EU on 31 October, deal or no deal. So, we’re all on the same page now.

EU27: Marvellous. But, er, has your Parliament made any progress with any Brexit-related legislation, or anything like that?

UK: You must be fucking joking! When would we have had the time for that? We had the Easter recess, straight after we agreed the Article 50 extension, and then we had the Whitsun recess. You do appreciate the importance of Whitsun, yes?

EU27: We do. But we are not trying to leave the complex legal framework of the EU after 45 years. You are.

UK: Well, talk to your car manufacturers, and make us an offer! We’ll discuss it with Nigel and, you know, get back to you. Anyway, before we finish, a heads up: we might have a general election soon. Or a second referendum. We just need to work out what to put on the ballot paper. Don’t suppose you’ve got any ideas for that?

EU27: We think that’s probably a matter for you. But, going back to the Conservative Party leadership contest, when will we know for sure who is the new prime minister?

UK: Depends how many more chaps want to throw their hat in the ring! Or chapesses, obviously. But we’re hoping to have it all done and dusted by the last week of July.

EU27: Okaaay. And what happens then?

UK: Summer recess, innit.

EU27: *sighs* Right, of course. Until when?

UK: We’re back on 2 September. But only for two weeks. Then it’s the party conference season recess. Obviously. Until 7 October.

EU27: So, if we’ve got this right, once you’ve finished electing a new prime minister, you’ll have just 15 parliamentary sitting days before we meet again at our Council meeting on 17-18 October?

UK: You know what? We haven’t even counted! Ha ha! But yes, 15 days sounds about right.

EU27: Fifteen days isn’t very long. You’ve had 122 sitting days since we signed off the Withdrawal Agreement in November, and … er, nothing has changed. Other than that you’ve dumped your prime minister, elected 29 Brexit Party MEPs, and had Donald Trump over to tell everyone how great Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are.

UK: Whatever.

EU27: *weeps*

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Brexit: Remainers have a credibility problem

Earlier this week, while walking the stage of the Thames Path from Windsor to Marlow, my bestie Jane and I trudged through Maidenhead, the constituency of our soon-to-be-former Prime Minister. We didn’t see Theresa May, but we did agree that Maidenhead pretty well sums up what is wrong with this country.

Because you can’t walk through Maidenhead without being utterly appalled by the filthy wealth that its residents ostentatiously flaunt through their hotel-sized houses, their perfectly manicured gardens the size of a small park, and their often garishly-coloured BMWs. It is a different planet to Wigan, or Wakefield.

But in last week’s European Parliament election, Wigan, Wakefield and Maidenhead all voted for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. Which (a) is not actually a political party (it’s an undemocratic private company run for the benefit of Nigel Farage’s ego); and (b) wants the UK to leave the EU on 31 October, with or without a deal. And when it says ‘deal’, it doesn’t mean the Withdrawal Agreement, which – like it or not – is and will remain the only ‘deal’ on offer (apart from the politics of the matter, the Article 50 extension agreement of 11 April explicitly rules out any renegotiation or “re-opening” of the Withdrawal Agreement). Indeed, to the Brexit Party, both ‘remain’ and the Withdrawal Agreement represent a betrayal of what The People voted for in June 2016.

A ‘no deal’ exit from the EU would be an economic and social catastrophe for the residents of Wigan and Wakefield. Jobs would be lost, prices would rise, and public spending cuts caused by falling tax revenues would further tighten the austerity screw that led many of them to vote for Brexit in the first place. More and more people, already desperately poor by the obscene standards of Maidenhead, would find themselves sitting at home (or on the street), hungry and with little to do other than admire their blue passport (assuming, that is, the Home Office can get stocks of the damn things delivered from France).

Meanwhile, in Maidenhead, some residents might have to cut back on the number of gardeners they employ to constantly perfect the vista from their two-storey, glass-walled sitting room. But many are simply too well-cushioned to even notice. Maidenhead survived two world wars, and it would probably survive a third without even noticing it was happening.

So, two very different parts of the country voted for the same stupid thing – one part because they don’t realise just how fucking stupid the stupid thing would be for them and their community, and the other because they are too filthy rich and insulated from the lives of others less fortunate than them to give a toss. And a private company has secured (i) 29 highly paid seats and expense accounts in the European Parliament, and (ii) a lot of free publicity for the next phase of its business plan: a general election or second referendum on Brexit.

However, last week the Tories scored their lowest vote since 1832 and, as Polly Toynbee notes in the Guardian, “that abysmal result will see the Tories move heaven and earth not to call a self-immolating general election, which would let the Farage hordes on to their Westminster turf”. So, if the UK is not simply to crash out of the EU on 31 October, without a deal, and a general election isn’t going to happen because it would be politically “catastrophic” for the Tories, as Tory leadership contender Jeremy Hunt agrees, how else can we resolve the Brexit gridlock that has paralysed both Government and Parliament since November last year?

Toynbee concludes that “going back to the people” with a second referendum is “the only way to cauterise the gaping national split and confront once and for all the many dark issues that lurk beneath the nativist Brexit idea”. And, on Twitter, the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, agrees that “it’s no use trying to hide from these very disappointing results … the only way to break the Brexit impasse is to go back to the public with a choice between a credible leave option and remain”.

Which neatly highlights the key problem facing those still advocating (or, like shadow chancellor John McDonnell, belatedly coming round to the idea of) a second referendum: there is no “credible leave option” to put up against ‘remain’ on the ballot paper. Or, to put it another way, there are only two possible ‘leave’ options – and neither of them is credible as the ‘leave’ option on any second referendum ballot paper.

Those two leave options are: (a) accept the Withdrawal Agreement, as it stands (because, as noted above and as Jean-Claude Juncker reminded everyone yesterday, it cannot be renegotiated, or even ‘tweaked’); and (b) leave the EU with no deal. I’ll take each in turn, but before I do so, it’s perhaps worth reminding ourselves of something rather important.

Which is that, for there to be a second referendum, the House of Commons would first have to pass a Second Referendum Bill setting out the wording of the ballot question (which would also be tested for fairness and approved by the Electoral Commission before the Bill completes its passage through the Commons). Which means there would have to be a stable majority among MPs for the wording of that question, including the ‘leave’ option. A lot of pro-second referendum remainers (including some very clever ones) appear to think that all they have to do is say “remain must be on the ballot paper”, and Leavers will helpfully provide the ‘leave’ option, then helpfully pass the necessary Bill, then (if the Bill passes) helpfully not bring a legal challenge to the ballot question in the courts. As I will now try to explain, that is naive to the point of delusion.

Let’s start with (a), the Withdrawal Agreement. Just about the only committed supporter of the Withdrawal Agreement in the House of Commons is Theresa May. Labour (bar a few pro-Brexit rebels), the Lib Dems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Caroline Lucas of the Greens have all voted against it repeatedly. The hard-Brexiteers in the ERG hate it, as do most of the eleven (so far) contenders for the Tory leadership. Indeed, it was the evident fact that MPs would again vote down the Withdrawal Agreement (in the form of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill) that forced Theresa May into such a precipitate and humiliating resignation.

Until that resignation, the strategy of pro-second referendum MPs was to try to knock down all the options other than a second referendum (Norway Plus etc.) in the hope that, at the very last minute, Theresa May would in desperation offer a second referendum in return for those pro-remain MPs voting with the Government in favour of ‘her’ deal (that is, the Withdrawal Agreement). But Theresa May is now only minding the shop, and it’s hard if not impossible to imagine any of the favourites in the Tory leadership race needing or being willing to offer such a Faustian bargain, especially with the newly invigorated Nigel Farage snapping at their heels, ready to scream “Betrayal!” at the slightest provocation. Indeed, it’s very hard to imagine any of them agreeing to a second referendum of any kind – as of course they would need to do.

Moreover, even if, by some miracle, pro-remain MPs – including Labour MPs rejoicing with a new, pro-second referendum policy of the kind imagined by Keir Starmer – managed to secure a majority to force prime minister Boris Johnson or Michael Gove to introduce a Second Referendum Bill with the Withdrawal Agreement as the ‘leave’ option on the ballot paper, and the EU27 then agreed to another Article 50 extension (as would be necessary), Nigel Farage would no doubt manufacture both a public outcry and a legal challenge to the ballot question. The voters would be invited to see the ballot question as a stitch-up, and – as it would be a stitch-up – they would most likely agree.

In short, if after the events of the past few weeks you still think that ‘accept the Withdrawal Agreement’ is a credible ‘leave’ option for a second referendum, there is a three-legged horse running at Kempton Park next week that you should probably put your life savings on. Because hey, it might win. And you really haven’t learnt anything from the last three years of Brexit mayhem.

As for (b), leave the EU with no deal, the problem is that just about all the the MPs who might vote to have a second referendum think (and have said publicly) that ‘no deal’ would be an economic and social catastrophe. So they would be inviting the public to vote for something that they would most likely then refuse to implement. Which is the kind of stupid thing that got us into this situation in the first place. If there is one lesson that MPs should have learnt from the fiasco of 2016, it is that you should only invite the public to vote on options that you are prepared – and know how – to implement.

And pro-remain MPs would be taking a massive gamble by accepting ‘no deal’ as the ‘leave’ option. Because the very act of voting to have ‘no deal’ on the ballot paper would blow a massive hole through their main campaign argument that ‘no deal’ would be a catastrophe. As Abi Wilkinson notes, it would be “totally rational for people to disbelieve they’re being given the option to vote for something catastrophic, because what kind of lunatic government/parliament would put that to [a] referendum?”

In short, and as noted previously on this blog, the question cannot be Put Back to The People without MPs first agreeing on what the question is. And there is simply no credible ‘leave’ option that it is possible to see MPs agreeing to include in the question.

But none of this will stop remainers calling for a second referendum. Both sides of the Brexit debate have been intellectual honesty-free zones for some time now, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Unfortunately, though, by the time the Tory leadership election concludes in late July, unless the new prime minister’s first act is to order MPs to sit through some or all of the summer recess, there will only be 15 parliamentary sitting days left until the EU Council meeting on 17-18 October.

That’s 15 working days in which to at least get started on ‘sorting’ Brexit.

So, here’s a nice photo from my Thames Path walk on Monday, of the Olympic rowing course at Dorney (which, just like you and me, dear reader, is owned by Eton school).

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Brexit: the People’s Dilemma

So, MPs are busy piddling away another four days of the precious little time they have left to at least get started on ‘sorting’ Brexit before the EU27 take a rain-check on the Hallowe’en Article 50 extension at their Council meeting on 20-21 June. And one week tomorrow The People will troop to the polls in an election that was not supposed to happen, which the Tories are still doing their best to pretend isn’t happening, and which seems set to do absolutely nothing to help with that ‘sorting’ of Brexit – other than put the wind up Tory MPs. Perhaps that’s the whole point.




To the surprise of almost no one, the Labour Party has produced a constructively ambiguous manifesto from which it is very hard to tell whether the party wants to leave or remain in the EU, while the Brexit Party – led by the BBC’s star talent, Nigel Farage – is consistently polling more than the Tories and Labour combined without bothering to write a manifesto at all.

Indeed, from reading the party manifestos that have been published, you would struggle to learn very much at all about how their authors plan to use the time that, one month ago, Donald Tusk warned them not to waste in seeking to resolve the Brexit gridlock that has paralysed both Government and Parliament since November last year.

Labour’s manifesto, for example, grandly promises “we will end austerity, invest in communities, protect our public services, and ensure those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share”. And there’s much more like that:

Labour would strengthen trade union rights, increase the minimum wage to a real living wage, fund proper enforcement, and give trade unions access to workplaces. We will ban the overseas-only advertising of jobs in the UK, and ensure every worker has the same basic rights from day one in the job.

They do realise this is an election to the European Parliament, don’t they?

But as to how Labour would resolve the issue that has kept the House of Commons gridlocked for six months and required not one but two extensions of the two-year Article 50 period that was supposed to end on 29 March, the manifesto says only that

Labour will continue to oppose the Government’s bad deal or a disastrous no deal. And if we can’t get agreement along the lines of our unicorn-packed alternative plan, or a general election, Labour backs the option of a public vote.

OK, it doesn’t say “unicorn-packed alternative plan”. I made that bit up. The alternative plan is “to seek a close and cooperative relationship with the European Union, including a new comprehensive customs union with a UK say, close single market alignment, guaranteed rights and standards, and the protection of the Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland”. No unicorns there!

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has added that any ‘deal’ or ‘agreement’ that emerges from the so far unproductive talks between Labour and the Government – now entering their seventh week – would, in his view, need to be subject to “a confirmatory [public] vote”. But neither he nor his party’s manifesto says when that vote might need to take place, or what (other) choices might be on the ballot paper. As Matthew d’Ancona noted in the Guardian on Monday:

Jeremy Corbyn launched Labour’s European election campaign last week with a speech that presented Brexit less as a historic challenge than a hugely irritating distraction from his grand plan for Britain.

Similarly, the Liberal Democrats’ ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ manifesto simply states: “We can stop Brexit through a People’s Vote”. Not a single word about when this People’s Vote would be held – and whether that would require yet another Article 50 extension, as it almost certainly would – or what choices The People would find on the ballot paper.

Ditto the Greens, who say in their manifesto that a vote for the Green Party on 23 May is a vote to “remain in the EU, through putting the question of Brexit back to the people and mobilising a positive, pro-European movement to win the People’s Vote for Remain”. Which is certainly more positive and pro-European than the party’s 2015 general election pledge to “prioritise local self-reliance rather than the EU’s unsustainable economics of free trade and growth”. However, there is no clue given as to what question, exactly, would be put back to The People, or when that might happen.

In a literally colourless manifesto brimming with pro-EU sentiment, Change UK say that “the only way” to “put the chaos and division of the past few years behind us” and “reconcile the country” is to “give the final say on whether to proceed with Brexit, as it is today, to the people”. Which does at least suggest that their ‘final say’ would be a choice between remaining in the EU, or accepting the Prime Minister’s blindfold Brexit deal.

The Women’s Equality Party’s manifesto is more colourful, in every sense, and is similarly packed with enthusiasm for the EU project (as well as good policies). But on resolving the Brexit crisis by October, it too says only that “We back a People’s Vote”. And, at the time of writing, both the SNP and Plaid Cymru have yet to publish a manifesto.

In short, the above manifestos tell The People virtually nothing about how Labour, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Change UK or the Women’s Equality Party (WEP) would, given the chance, use the remaining time – just ten parliamentary sitting days, between the election next Thursday and the crucial EU Council meeting on 20-21 June – to at least make a start on ‘sorting’ Brexit. Or how they would complete that task before the next EU Council meeting on 17-18 October – the last before the expiry of the Article 50 extension on 31 October.

Sure, the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Change UK and WEP – and possibly Labour too – say they would hold a People’s Vote/second referendum/confirmatory public vote. But all gloss over the fact that holding such a referendum would now require a further Article 50 extension beyond 31 October – an extension to which the EU27 may or may not agree. And none are prepared to spell out exactly what choices (other than ‘Remain in the EU’) they would (or would not) put on the ballot paper. Which is far from being an academic question. It really, really matters.

Apart from anything else, there can only be such a referendum if MPs speedily pass the necessary primary legislation – and that in turn requires there to be a stable Commons majority on what choices to put on the ballot paper. In other words, the question can only be Put Back to The People once MPs (and the Electoral Commission) have managed to agree – in precise terms – what the question should be. And, for reasons set out in detail by Chris Cook on Tortoise some months ago, the ‘question of the question’ is “a problem that may be insuperable”. For, as noted previously on this blog, in the wise words of Andrew Duff of the European Policy Centre:

The Electoral Commission would insist that the conduct of the referendum was both free and fair. The House of Commons would need to agree on a [ballot] question that did not effectively disenfranchise that large part of the electorate opposing not only the deal on offer, but also the revocation of Brexit. Parliament could overrule the Electoral Commission, but not without litigation and public outcry.

Yet the pro-Remain parties (and Labour) evidently all agree that it would be irresponsible to put ‘leave with no deal’ on the ballot paper. Which really leaves only ‘Remain in the EU’ and the Prime Minister’s existing, blindfold Brexit deal as the ballot paper options. For, even if the talks between Labour and the Tories belatedly generate some kind of agreement, it won’t significantly alter the existing deal with the EU27: at the very most, it will amount to a few minor tweaks to the non-binding (so potentially meaningless) Political Declaration, and won’t change a single word of the Withdrawal Agreement. In any case, the Political Declaration already covers the full spectrum of possible future relationships, so there’s no need to tweak it.

In short, whatever agreement Labour and the Tories might reach, it would still be the same bungled, blindfold deal that Theresa May agreed with the EU27 back in November. But that deal has already been rejected three times by MPs, large numbers of Tory MPs are likely to reject (and vote against) any tweaking of it agreed with Labour, and Justine Greening, the pro-Remain and pro-second referendum former education secretary, rightly notes that “the Cabinet’s halfway-house fudged Brexit pleases no one. Failing to realise that and ducking tough decisions is just fuelling populism.”

Which is not something you want to do, really, if you are intent on holding a referendum campaign during which right wing populists like Nigel Farage would be handed shed loads of public money to further promote right wing populism. Indeed, as Phil Syrpis of Bristol University tweeted earlier this week, in a thread that is well-worth repeating in full:

A People’s Vote would make sense in a world in which we (the UK) had a settled path for Brexit, and MPs wanted to assess whether there was sufficient popular support for that Brexit. Brexiteers would argue that such a vote is not necessary, and that the Leave vote of 2016 provides the country with a sufficient mandate. Were they to lose that argument, they would then, in the People’s Vote [campaign], make a passionate case for Brexit.

It beggars belief that people do not seem to realise that we do not inhabit the world just described. Nigel Farage is making political capital, because he is characterising not just Remain, but also the Withdrawal Agreement, as a betrayal. He is not cheering on the Government in their tortuous effort to try to implement Brexit. He is not willing the cross-party talks to reach some sort of consensus. He is inviting people to demonstrate their scorn for all politicians.

Farage’s message resonates [with voters] because he is, in part, right. Politicians have, in the years since 2016, failed to deliver Brexit. But the failure of politicians is not quite that they have failed to deliver Brexit, but rather that they have failed even to define Brexit, to explain the different implications of different possible Brexits.

In this, Farage is as culpable as anyone: the Brexit Party has no manifesto! Farage offers no solutions. But it is easy for him to treat [the pro-Remain parties’] calls for a People’s Vote – between Remain and [accepting] the Withdrawal Agreement – with scorn. He can claim with some justification that [The People] did not vote for either of [those two] options.

Phil concludes – and, indeed, has been arguing with force for some time – that the pro-Remain parties would do better to call for revoke (i.e. for revocation of the Article 50 notification), thereby forcing Farage, Rees-Mogg and others to set out their version of Brexit – and then get challenged on how they plan to deliver it.

In short, by focusing on a People’s Vote/second referendum/confirmatory public vote – something they themselves have manifestly failed to deliver, and still cannot fully explain how and when might ever happen – the pro-Remain parties have been, and are, making it easy for the Brexiteers. Back in August last year, I suggested on this blog that:

If Brexit is blind, and MPs cannot see the future relationship, then the voters will be no better sighted, and any People’s Vote would simply be reduced to a no doubt divisive re-run of the in/out farce of June 2016. For Leavers it would be the easiest political campaign in history, to make up for not getting the easiest trade deal in history.

The results of next week’s election will provide an early indication of whether I was right to be so pessimistic [I think you mean ‘so defeatist and unhelpful’. Ed].

Anyway, here’s a nice photo of Whitesands, Pembrokeshire that I took last week when not thinking about Brexit at all.

Posted in Brexit | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment