Friday News Roundup — December 14, 2018: The Surreal Oval Office Meeting; London’s Brexit Brouhaha; and Stories You May Have Missed.
Greetings from Washington, D.C. The final days of the lame duck session are almost concluded, and little progress has been made to avoid a shutting down part of the government. With one more week before the holiday recess, the week’s busy tempo was punctuated by drama on both sides of the Atlantic.
In this week’s roundup, Dan looks at the cringeworthy meeting that took place in the Oval Office, while Michael covers the twists-and-turns of Brexit-fueled British politics. As always, we close with stories you may have missed.
The Trump-Pelosi-Schumer Meeting: White House or Wrestlemania?
Dan Mahaffee
“Heated,” “rowdy,” “depressing,” “WWE event…” Those are just some of the terms used in the headlines describing the surreal 17 minutes of President Trump, presumed-Speaker-designate Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Schumer discussing the risk of a partial government shutdown over funds for the controversial border wall.
With this partial government shutdown looming on December 21st threatening to interrupt operations at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Agriculture, and other agencies, the meeting at the Oval Office was to provide an opportunity for President Trump and the key Democratic Congressional leaders to hash out a deal that would avoid last-minute brinkmanship on Capitol Hill. What resulted instead was a scene that resembled the drama of reality television more than the decorum of the Oval Office. While all three appeared visibly angry — with President Pence trying to avoid the verbal scrum — one cannot help but get the sense that they all achieved what they wanted out of the meeting.
President Trump was able to demonstrate to his fervent base that he was willing to go to the mat for the border wall. How else, the president argued, can we keep illegal immigrants and terrorists out of our country? The president cited that “ten terrorists” had been arrested at the border — a claim that even his own administration was not able to support. Soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi showed her willingness to go toe-to-toe with the White House; she burnished her claim on the Speakership while trying to secure her own restive caucus. Despite being the minority party for a few more weeks, Pelosi spoke from a position of strength because no one seriously believes that there are enough votes from the Republican Caucus in the House to pass a spending bill, and even with the GOP gains in the Senate, Minority Leader Schumer reminded us all that Democratic Senate votes will still be needed to get anything past a 60-vote threshold.
Trump-loving Republicans saw a forceful president standing up to out-of-touch liberals. “Resistance” Democrats saw their leaders standing up to an out-of-control White House. Therefore, as unbecoming as the whole process was, perhaps the “WWE event” comparison was the most fitting. Lots of drama; each side had their “faces” and “heels;” and, while a spirit of political “kayfabe” was maintained, nothing really happened—but everyone left with the soundbytes they wanted.
For 2019, there is a good chance that we’ll see more of this. Once, it was believe that the odd-numbered years were an opportunity to get things done in Washington. Perhaps that conventional wisdom will hold. But little conventional wisdom survives in this era as we dig our political trenches deeper and a no man’s land replaces what was once the political center.
The GOP caucus is smaller, but much more aligned with the Trump takeover of the GOP. The Democratic caucus has expanded, and the interests of incumbents are being reconciled with a range of new members. Some have promised to resist Trump; some won by reflecting the skepticism their swing districts have of the Democratic establishment; and some are in both camps.
Meanwhile, a White House that is feeling increasingly besieged is looking at 2019 not through the lens of compromise. Rather the Democratic House is, in the words of Ben Wittes’ summary of the investigations surrounding the Trump Administration, “the big new army marching on the Trump fortress.” A stark logic is likely settling in that it is better to shore up the base and delegitimize the Democratic opposition in advance of 2020.
Perhaps agreement can be found on keeping the lights on through Christmas, and maybe the “art of the deal” will allow for progress on infrastructure or prescription drug pricing — areas where the White House and Democrats might align. Still, if there is agreement to be found, it won’t take place in front of the television cameras.
The Brexit Carousel of Pain Spins On
Michael Stecher
Nobody seriously thought that UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit proposal was going to pass in the House of Commons on Tuesday. The debate among Westminster watchers was whether it would fail narrowly or spectacularly. If it failed narrowly, one contact assured me, the government could quickly put it up for a second vote and peel off some members of the Labour Party opposition who would prefer a smooth, albeit imperfect, Brexit to the national disaster that would accompany a no-deal Brexit. This person said it would be like the votes on the Troubled Asset Relief Plan in Congress in 2008: Congress voted down the controversial bailout plan and the stock market fell by over 7%. Spooked by the downturn, a bipartisan coalition voted for the plan later that week. Unfortunately for PM May, the whip counts in Commons pointed to a spectacular failure. This week, she pulled the plan from consideration, survived a no-confidence vote from members of her own party, and began the process of trying to “fix” it for a new vote in January. All told, the great circular firing squad that is Brexit continued to go round and round.
The single biggest problem with May’s plan has to do with the “backstop” for the Irish border. Part of the Good Friday Accords that ended the strife between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland was an agreement that there would not be a “hard border” between the north, which remains part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland, an independent state and part of the European Union. May’s negotiating team tried to square this circle by having the UK adhere to the rules of the EU’s trade and customs union (the “Common Market”) for an indefinite period until the UK and EU can come to a further agreement in the future. The UK would follow the EU rules but lose its voice in the setting of those rules. Unsurprisingly, this plan to volunteer for taxation without representation is unpopular.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with the Brexit negotiations. The initial referendum for Brexit passed with 52% of the vote, but that does not mean that a majority of the electorate has a single unified vision of what problems Brexit was meant to solve. There are Brexiteers who want to end free movement of people to protect jobs for native Britons and keep out possible terrorists. There were “Leave” voters who want out of the regulations on business that are common among EU members. There were leftist Brexit supporters (including, it is widely believed, the leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn) who wanted to end free movement of financial capital to diminish the influence of the banks in the City of London. And, frankly, there were people who bought into the … let’s call it the self-serving bovine excrement that spewed forth from certain quarters.
There simply is no version of Brexit that ends free movement of people, ends free movement of capital, abjures the rules of the common market, gives everyone in the UK a free pony, does not crash the economy, and keeps the Good Friday Accords. And no Brexit that does not do all of these things has a majority of support (if there is still a majority for “Leave” at all).
On Monday, PM May announced that she would pull the Brexit plan from consideration because it would fail “by a significant margin.” This prompted members of her own party to call for a vote to replace her. That she survived this vote 63%-37% suggests that the margin against the plan would indeed have been massive. She is today demonstrably weaker than she was a few days ago, when she was already a historically weak PM who could not count on a stable majority in Parliament. She has already announced that she will not be the party leader for the next general election, currently scheduled for 2022.
Unfortunately for Britain, their political system is unprepared for the crisis they face. May, who opposed Brexit, is in charge of making it happen and is unpopular with large swaths of her party. Corbyn, who quietly supported Brexit, leads the opposition and is unpopular with large swaths of his party. No party has a majority in Common and no plan has majority support among the population. Normally the British would solve this problem with a new election, but nobody seems to want to be the person in the big chair making the tough calls. And as demonstrated by the initial referendum, plebiscites are a terrible way to try and guide nuanced policy.
All the while, the leaders of the EU have made it clear that this is the best deal that the UK could hope for, while hinting not at all subtly that the UK could decide to undo its Brexit vote at any time. There is some reason to believe that all parties will become more flexible as the deadline after which the UK will have left the EU approaches—as one famous British writer put it, “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the mind wonderfully.” Barring some intervention, that is exactly what will happen at the end of March. Unfortunately, no one has a really good idea what that intervention could or should be.
News You May Have Missed
Trump Administration Launches New Africa Strategy
National Security Advisor John Bolton described the new strategy in a speech at the Heritage Foundation. His speech connected Africa to the new era of great power competition and underscored the fundamentally predatory nature of China and Russia’s engagements on the continent. He also criticized UN peacekeeping missions in Africa for failing to provide sustainable peace and security and suggested that the United States may withdraw funding from efforts that the administration does not consider to be productive.
Ceasefire Agreement Reached for Yemeni Port
The Yemeni Government and Houthi rebel group agreed to a UN-sponsored ceasefire in the strategically important port city of Hodeidah. The city had been under a blockade by the Saudi- and Emirati-led coalition that was a major cause of the widespread starvation taking place in Yemen. UN Secretary General Guterres will hold further talks in January to try and bring the entire conflict to an end.
Marriott Data Breach Tied to Chinese Intelligence Service
The breach that collected details of 500 million guests at Marriott properties worldwide was part of a coordinated campaign by the Chinese Ministry of State Security, the same entity that has hacked American health insurers and government security clearance files. According to the New York Times, the Trump administration is weighing appropriate responses.
Goodyear Workers in Venezuela paid severance in tires
Citing the difficulties with doing business in the beyond-collapsed Venezuelan economy, Goodyear has decided to cease production in that Latin American country. Some of the severance payments have included 10 actual tires, which are highly valuable on the black market. Reporting from 2017 suggests that an individual tire goes for about $350 in Venezuela, or 185,759 of the new bolívares soberanos at the black market exchange rate.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of CSPC.
