Since my last blog, several important political events have taken place in UK politics – including the Spring Budget and Boris Johnson appearing in front of the Privileges Committee. However, the most remarkable one in Brexit terms, was certainly the vote in the House of Commons on the so-called Stormont Brake. This new instrument is part of the Windsor Framework (WF), which has been recently agreed – and now formally signed – by the EU and the UK government. The Stormont Brake is meant to guaranteed that the Northern Ireland Assembly has a say about EU law applying to NI.

 What was remarkable about the vote is how the ERG failed to orchestrate the revolt many commentators had feared would take place if the DUP decided to oppose the WF (which it did). Before the vote, the ERG’s assessment of the framework had been expected to be ‘bad for the government,’ to reignite Brexit tensions, and possibly threaten Sunak’s government. Politics Home’s Adam Payne considered that “a rejection [of the framework] by the DUP combined with a large Conservative back bench rebellion would put the PM in a tricky political position, challenging his authority and dashing hopes that Sunak would be able to put the Tory party's ghosts of Brexit to bed once and for all.” 

Ultimately, the ERG managed to mobilise 22 conservative MPs to rebel against the Stormont Brake – despite the fact that its position was backed by two former PMs Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. So, the vote went Sunak’s way with an overwhelming majority, not requiring Labour’s votes who also voted in favour.

Given the formidable force that the ERG has been inside the Tory party since the 1990s, this result is remarkable. As Chris Grey notes in his Brexit & Beyond blog “it is plausible to say that the grip of the ERG has finally been broken, and that Sunak, unlike any of his predecessors since 1992, has successfully faced them down.”

So, is this a turning point for British politics? Did the last weeks mark the moment where Brexit has finally loosened its iron grip on the Tory party? Has Sunak managed to call the ERG’s bluff, showing others that it is possible to start mending our relationships with the EU without the Brexit Ultras being able to bring down the government? Could this pave the way to a process of ‘rapprochement’ with the EU that could lead to something like Brexit in Name Only and thus eliminate the many downsides of the hard Brexit the Tories have imposed on the country?

The thread that may unravel Brexit

It is certainly too early to answer any of these questions with certainty. Politics are contingent and many things can happen especially in such a volatile environment as early 21st century British politics. The vote on the Stormont Brake is significant however, not just in terms of what it says about the ERG’s grip on the Tory party, but also in terms of what it means for Northern Ireland. The DUP’s opposition to the WF and its rejection of the Stormont Brake, does mean that there will be no return to power sharing in Stormont. Yet, increasingly, this may become as big a problem for the DUP as for NI. Indeed, the vast majority of people in NI are in favour of the WF and consider the NIP a less important issue than more mundane problems, like the costs of living. That means that the DUP increasingly withdraws into a self-imposed separation from what people in NI want – including their own voters amongst whom support for the WF dominates over opposition (36% v. 22.8%). Opposing the WF may hence soon become an electoral liability outside of the hard-right core of the unionist vote.

More generally, as I wrote a few months ago, Northern Ireland has a very special position in the Brexit saga. Due to the importance that both the US and the EU accord to maintaining peace in NI, there are limits to how reckless politicians in Westminster can be when it comes to NI. This imposes a more moderate approach to Brexit in NI than in the rest of the UK. That is what made the NIP and now the Windsor Framework possible, which essentially consolidates NI’s unique position inside the EU’s Single Market for goods and in the UK’s internal market. Sunak drew a lot of ridicule and anger when he hailed the NI’s unique position, which – according to him – creates the ‘world’s most exciting economic zone.’ He may have a point: In 2021, NI ranked second – only behind London – of any UK region for FDI per capita inflows. NI’s increased attractiveness for FDI due to its membership in both the EU and UK internal markets under the NIP has further increased now that the WF has been agreed, providing more stability to the post-Brexit arrangements. However, this may create another problem for Sunak: NI may become the prime example of the benefits of a softer Brexit, thus increasing calls in other parts of the country to get a similar special deal. From a Brexiter perspective, having a part of the country that benefits from a closer relationships with the EU constitutes a constant reminder what the rest of the UK is missing out on. That, may become the thread that unravels Brexit.

NI could also become the reason why the UK will not leave the ECHR despite Tory hardliners’ continued push for it. Indeed, given the centrality of the ECHR for the Good Friday Agreement, the decision to leave the convention would have major implications for the UK and undo any progress about the NIP that has been made in recent months. Here too, NI’s special position and its importance outside of the UK means not only that it is to some extent sheltered from the UK government’s Brexit strategy, but also that it actually may become a roadblock to some of the most extreme Brexiter strategies, including Brexit 2.0.

The Return of ‘establishment Toryism’?

So, have we turned a corner and more reasonable forces are on the way of taking back control of the Tory party from the far-right, libertarian extremists who have pushed the country over the edge?

One observer who thinks so is the Telegraph’s Allister Heath – but he does not think it is a good thing and will not last for long. In a combative article commenting on the failed rebellion over the Windsor Framework, he fulminates against the elite who ‘believes in the top-down rule of experts, social engineers, lawyers, economists and philosopher-kings, empowered to construct, enforce and impose a “better”, more “rational” world.’  These are the values of what he calls the ‘failed establishment Toryism.’ Instead, he wants the Tories to speak for those who are Eurosceptic, ‘sceptical of net zero (and supportive of technological solutions to environmental problems), anti-European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), anti-woke, pro-economic growth for all, and pro the creation of independent yeoman-citizens who stand on their own two feet, own their own homes and are able to accumulate financial wealth.’

The strategy he advocates for our relationship with the EU is not ‘rapprochement,’ but confrontation. Indeed, Heath wants the UK to pull out of the ECHR to trigger ‘an all-out bust-up with the EU, cancelling Windsor and forcing another, nastier renegotiation of our relationship with Brussels.’

Heath’s views are disturbing for several reasons. For one, he still seems to believe in the ‘hardball diplomacy’ strategy that so spectacularly failed under Johnson and Frost, which has further been confirmed – if further confirmation was needed – by Stefaan De Rynck’s recent book on the EU perspective on the Brexit negotiations. For the other, his arguments are utterly incoherent and self-contradictory. He rejects the rule of experts and technocrats, while calling for a belief in ‘technological solutions to environmental problems.’ He sees the ‘green lanes’ at NI customs established by the Windsor Framework as proof that Remainers were wrong (because they show the UK can get from the EU what it wants), while complaining at the same time that the very same agreement only constitutes ‘a series of practical concessions’ from the EU that ‘can be withdrawn at any time.’

It would be reassuring to attribute such views to just one right wing fanatic who is being given a platform way bigger than his wit. Yet, rather than a return of more reasonable ‘establishment Tories,’ what strikes me is that these unhinged ramblings were published in the Telegraph and such views still hold considerable sway in the Tory party. Some of this was on display again this week around the UK’s joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) free trade area.

The CPTPP: Entrenching Brexit?

Unsurprisingly, Brexiters hailed the signing this week of the CPTPP agreement as a great victory for Sunak and Brexiters in general, which shows that Remainers do not understand just how great Great Britain can be without the EU. Brexiter Shanker Singham went further, claiming that CPTPP membership would mean Britain can never join the EU’s customs union again and therefore Brexit can no longer be reversed. So, given that CPTPP membership seems to have been unlocked by the signing of the WF, will it have the paradoxical effect of making rapprochement with the EU possible, while at the same time locking the UK out of full EU membership forever?

The idea that CPTPP membership constitutes some sort of ‘poison pill,’ which means the UK cannot go back into the EU, is certainly false. Trade experts have pointed out that leaving the CPTPP again to rejoin the EU would be perfectly possible. Also, Chris Grey points out that there have been suggestions in the past that the EU may also apply for CPTPP membership.

Regardless, it is unlikely that keeping the UK outside the EU was the reason for the UK government being so keen on joining the trade block. Equally, it is hard to believe that the UK government seriously believes that a trade deal that is expected to add just 0.08% to the UK’s GDP makes any real differences to the UK’s economic fortunes. Or, for that matter, that this supposed Brexit benefit will convince Brits that it was all worth it, when the more directly observable downsides of Brexit, such as the queues at Dover persist and are in all likelihood going to get worse.

The real reason for the government’s enthusiasm for the CPTPP agreement is simply the continuing reification of Free Trade Agreements as a form of symbolic policies, which – just like the Rwanda policy or the Chancellor’s free Nursery hours promise – are not meant to actually solve any real world problems, but rather to provide positive headlines to increase the government’s popularity. The damage these symbolic policies do to Britain and the natural environment are disregarded. That is true not just for trade policy, but also in the area of immigration.

Dogs and whistles: Immigration

Besides trade, the other policy area the Tories are clinging onto in their desperation to avert electoral defeat is immigration. The debates about the Illegal Migration Bill are still ongoing in Parliament and a considerable number of Tory MPs had considered that the draconian bill that is probably contrary to international law, is not draconian enough, asking for further tightening of rules. After talks with the government, the Rebellion seems to have been defused for now. However, it is clear what this Tory-internal political dynamic does to the UK’s immigration policy: It pushes it further to the right. When an already extremely harsh law is being challenged for not being harsh enough, what MPs are doing is shifting the political dial further to the right. As soon as demands for harsher treatment of immigrants are tabled and discussed, the initial proposal automatically becomes moderate compared to the new one. Once a compromise has been found, we have moved another step towards the right. Some sources suggest that Home Secretary Braverman had secretly encouraged the rebellion in order to put pressure on the PM to make the bill even harsher.

The Tories’ strategy to play the immigration card has also seen an appalling campaign in recent days by Tory MPs and right-wing newspapers blaming opposition Leader Starmer for crimes committed by immigrants while he was director of public prosecutions. Meanwhile, home Secretary Braverman clearly feels encourage to push the boundary of racist dog whistling even further, openly singling out on national television British citizens of Pakistani descent for grooming ‘white English girls;’ A statement that is contrary to the government’s own evidence on the matter of grooming gangs.

This dynamic of increasingly radical anti-immigrant policies will not worry most Tory MPs. Immigration is one of the very few issues on which the public still trusts the Tories more to do a good job than Labour. The issue is important to people and indeed is moving considerably up on people’s list of priorities, albeit not to the hights it had reached in 2016. The reason why it is moving up the agenda is of course a direct result of the Tory government’s and its tabloid press’s own agitating about the issue.

Are things looking up for Sunak?

The Tories symbolic policies, the lies about supposed economic benefits of trade deals, and the dog whistling about immigration may be appalling, but they are potent ones. Indeed, while for a long time it looked like a complete Tory wipe out at the next general election was all but inevitable, things have changed in recent weeks. With Sunak being able to record some successes – including sorting the Northern Ireland issue while squelching the rebellion from within his party – some faint voices start to be heard who have not written off the Tories completely. Tim Bale – in a new book – notes that support for the Tories may be more resilient than may have been apparent during the chaotic Johnson and Truss premierships. Similarly, on the News Agent podcast, pollster James Kanagasoorium pointed out the almost unheard-off configuration where the lead of the Labour party over the Tory party is not reflected in a nearly equally large lead of Starmer over Sunak. While Labour still lead the Tories by more than 20% in terms of voting intentions; Starmer is only 5% points ahead of Sunak in terms of who people think would be the best PM. The latter metric, Kaangsoorium notes, is a much better predictor of GE outcomes than voting intensions for parties. Much will happen between now and the next GE – including local elections in May this year –, but Sunak has achieved what he promised: namely to stabilise the Tory ship somewhat and bring it back on course for an election victory.

He has done so with a strategy that seeks to throw just enough red meat to the right wing fringes of the party, while seeking some rapprochement with the EU. It is likely that he will continue to pursue this course, given that it is working remarkably – and indeed quite unexpectedly – well for him. This does create further policy uncertainty in Britain though. For each policy issue, the question is, will Sunak see it as an area on which it is worth taking on the Eurosceptic right-wing fringe of his party, or is it one where he should let them have a victory? It is clear that on immigration he will always cater to the right-wing of the party, while it is equally clear that on Northern Ireland he is ready to take on the Eurosceptics, presumably because the stakes and international pressure are so high in that respect. In many other areas, it is not clear, however, whether reasonable policy-making will fall pray to symbolic policy-making to appease the extremists in the party. The next weeks will show how strong Sunak now feels. If he does feel emboldened by the WF and the CPTPP victories, he may be more inclined to drop the Retain EU Law Bill than he previously was. If he still feels vulnerable or feels he owes the right-wingers in the party one for not rebelling against the WF, he may conversely be more likely to push it through against the advice and pleas of virtually any legal expert or businessperson in the country.

Therefore, what we will most likely see in the coming weeks and months is some sort of double game by the PM, which will consist of showing pragmatism and seeking rapprochement with the EU on less salient issues for the public and Tory right wingers, while engaging in symbolic adversarialism on issues that the Eurosceptic fringe of the party and the public care more about. As such, the Brexit spell has not been broken completely, but it certainly has lost some of its magic.