Westminstenders Continues. Boris is having a bad week. Corbyn resists. Its gonna be a long summer.

[RedToothBrush]

THE BREXIT FALLOUT CONTINUES - THREAD ELEVEN

The dust is beginning to settle and the storm has abated. At least for the moment. The summer is about to start, and so there may be a break in proceeding.

May has had quite a first week both here and abroad.

The ground has not stopped shaking from the political ripples abroad. Made PM on Weds, Nice on Thursday and a failed coup in Turkey on Friday. The political landscape has changed once again.

At home she first cleared out the Govians and called for loyalty. She channelled the ghost of Maggie at the despatch box. She started the process of trying to make friends with Scots, Germans and the French. She is apparently now Merkel's bestie. Sturgeon is already ousted from that position after just days.

Boris, meanwhile has been rinsed by everyone he speaks to because of what he's said in the past. He's also given up his chickfeed job. Oh the hardship.

Now he looking like he's starting to regret deciding to play with the grown up. He's been trying - and it would seem, largely failing - at sucking up to the Americans. There's still no apology, but he has admitted that he has a list that is so long that he's lost track of what he needs to apologise for. I bet he's wishing for his playmates, Dave and George to come back.

Otherwise life carries on as normal, well this alternate new version of normal, with parliament breaking for the summer today. Don't worry the Martian landing is scheduled for a week Tuesday.

UKIP's polling seems to have dropped back post referendum, and things have gone rather quiet. Wolfe, Etheridge, Duffy and Arnott are all standing (Who? When did that happen? Yeah quite. Without Farage they disappeared). They plan to reform and make an assault on seats in the Labour heartlands of the provisional NW, Midlands and NE at the next general election. Hustings in August, new leader announced Sept 15th. Looks of thinly and not so thinly veiled racism to look forward to there then. The Daily Mail best make sure it upgrades its servers in time.

The Labour contest grinds on like a war of attrition. Stalking horse Angela fell at the first fence as Owen Smith (that's the MP not the journalist everyone including the media!) wins the dream unity candidate ticket for an apparent hiding to nothing against the steely stubbornness of Corbyn. Everyone with a pulse is starting to loose the will to live with it all.

The Lib Dems, have a Spokesman for Remain. Old Cleggy's back! Otherwise they seem to have been trying to do a deluded impression of the opposition party. Though with 8 MPs they aren't doing much better or worse than Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet atm.

The Green are having a leadership battle too. It must be very civilised - I've heard not a word about it. Lucas tried to get a vote about PR though the Commons. It failed. Again.

There also is a cross party idea to set up a new iniative of a progressive movement to champion Europe, which seems to be gaining some traction. It may also double as a support group for anyone who thinks the world has gone a bit nuts lately at this rate.

The SNP are pissed off, as they vow differently on everything and once again they feel that Trident has been imposed on them. Sturgeon had a good meeting with May though, and apparently the Union must remain and Scotland holds the key to the future. Though we don't know the key to which door that is - Braveheart or Brave New World.

The Republic of Ireland is making noises about a referendum about Irish Unity, but beyond that nothing about NI has really been on the radar. May is supposed to go visiting soon.

And the Welsh? Baaaaa who cares about the welsh? They made the mistake of voting Leave as well as the English and now have been forgotten, consigned to political irrelevance forever.

Article 50 has been pushed back officially until the New Year, with a first legal hearing on how to activate it due no sooner than the 3rd week in October. Leaving the EU legally will now be no earlier than 2019.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2685902-Westminstenders-Contines-Boris-outmaneovered-everyone-Now-War-and-Peace?pg=1 Previous Thread TEN

Nauticant, I'm struggling to find a pro-Brexit argument that doesn't do that, doesn't simplify things to the level of a 10 year old, doesn't admit that its hard or doesn't ignore NI and Scotland. Its still not moved on from the day after the referendum tbh.

The best argument on the table seems to be for the EEA only covers that to a point and neglects the fact that the EU may be extremely unlikely to allow us to have that option and it doesn't seem to be the option of choice for Brexiteers - its the Remainers solution by and large.

I am trying to be balanced and find something 'good' and 'meaty' in substance. Not having much success tbh.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/02/russian-propaganda-western-media-manipulation?CMP=twt_gu
Propaganda? Great article.

I realised after I posted that it looked like I was criticising your choice of article. This definitely wasn't intended, like you I want to read good stuff on the other side but I find myself utterly frustrated in my search.

One argument that occurs to me is that disentangling ourselves is since proving to be such a nightmare that perhaps this means we've become to entangled and establishing more freedom of action for the country could actually be beneficial. If this argument were to be advanced in a developed form I'd be happy to read it so long as it included an acknowledgement that it will cost, we don't know how much it will cost, and it'll take years of tackling and getting through horrible difficulties.

I can't help being struck by the fact that the Leave side are afraid to acknowledge the magnitude of the task they've set the country. I have a suspicion that they want someone other than themselves to tackle it. This means they can avoid the headache themselves while doing this:

I find the EEA option interesting, but the idea that it is a stepping stone towards eventually leaving the single market somewhat bizarre. Wouldn't this prolong the uncertainty? What if by then public opinion has changed, will there be another referendum? It just sounds like a way of passing the buck, I don't see why the EU would agree to it, with the permanent threat of the UK leaving the EEA at any time.

Here's the Rees-Mogg article. To my non-expert understanding, he's not really making a convincing argument that leaving the EU is simple. He seems to be actually saying 'Invoking Article 50 is relatively simple and the rest can be figured out later.' That may be literally true but rather short-sighted surely.

Article follows:

Leaving the EU may feel like a constitutional headache, but it’s actually quite simple by Jacob Rees-Mogg
'Leaving the European Union is not as constitutionally complex as is sometimes claimed. Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union is admirably simple. A member state that wants to leave following its own constitutional practices needs to notify the European Council of its intentions. The Council is made up of the member states governments, it is not the unelected Commission. Once this process has started it lasts for two years unless everyone agrees to an extension. At that point the departing state goes and all further EU obligations cease.

'The purpose of the negotiation is to set out a framework for future relations with the EU, it is not necessarily the trade agreement although this is not specifically excluded in the text of the Article. It is likely to cover areas such as budgetary contributions, rights of migrants who have already settled and could allow for longer term transitions to avoid dislocations to existing businesses. The agreement is subject to qualified majority voting in the Council and the consent of the European Parliament. In spite of the appointment of Monsieur Barnier the role of the Commission is limited.

'Once a country has left it has to re-join, should it wish to do so, in the same way as any other applicant but it is not clear if the withdrawing member state may revoke its Article 50 application or not. The highly respected House of Lords’ European Committee believes that it can, having taken evidence from leading European lawyers, but this was not the Remain campaign’s orthodoxy.

'The benefits of reaching an agreement rather than just leaving are helpful but not overwhelming. As trade will probably be subject to a separate deal a clear break would simply remove all our EU obligations in one go which, as we are a net contributor to the budget and a major destination for economic migrants, would not damage our interest. Essentially negotiating under Article 50 is a means of achieving a more favourable trade deal by showing a degree of goodwill but there is no need to be too accommodative.

'Perhaps the most complex aspect of Article 50 is not how it operates in the EU but what UK mechanisms are used to exercise it. The phrase “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” is least useful to a member state that does not have a codified constitution. Is it a prerogative power or a legislative one?

'Joining the European Union was a prerogative act the consequences of which were brought into law by the European Communities Act 1972. It makes sense for the converse to apply, Article 50 ought therefore to be a governmental act but one which needs legislation to give it full effect. Some lawyers have argued that it requires Parliament to act first which, if true, means that the case that my father brought against the Maastricht Treaty was incorrectly decided.

'In that case Lord Justice Lloyd noted that “to talk of Parliamentary ratification of a Treaty is, as the textbooks point out, a constitutional solecism.” He when on to say that “it would presumably be open to the government to denounce the Treaty, or at least to fail to comply with its international obligations”.

'Although I confess that filial loyalty means I would not be entirely sorry if the courts proved my father was right all along I equally feel our judicial system would look faintly ridiculous if it found the law was one way for Eurosceptics and the other for pro-Europeans. This does not mean a debate in Parliament would be a bad thing, a supportive resolution for government policy could be useful but it is not necessary as Parliament gave the people the right to decide which they have duly done.

'At a later stage parliament will need to legislate to revise the 1972 Act which will be redundant. All laws under it will remain valid unless or until specifically repealed. Some of this could be done by statutory instrument which is the way most directives have come into UK law but reversing decisions of the European Court of Justice would need primary legislation although an omnibus bill may be a good idea. Fortunately there is no uncertainty as to what our law is, what it may become by our own actions will be a matter of normal political debate.'

Leaving the European Union is unquestionably a big decision but it is not a particularly complex one. Article 50 is easy, the royal prerogative is clear and the law is stable. Additionally the political will also seems to be present to make it happen and to work.

Ahh, I see. So like in this story:

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/31/daredevil-skydiver-jumps-from-76km-without-a-parachute

it was all very simple because all that was required was for the skydiver to jump out of the plane without the parachute. The details followed later.

Sadly I only buy the Times on a Saturday so cannot report on JRM verbatim. However I assume he will be arguing along these lines

www.lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-referendum-binding.shtml

Interesting that it was his Dad Lord Rees Mogg who led the unsuccessful legal challenge to ratification of Maastricht.

I tried unsuccessfully to find the interview I watched with NS where she quite rightly imo cast doubt on relying too closely on the absolute "letter of the law" in relation to international treaty law.

X-post with rebecca. The link I gave is from a pro Brexit legal grouping and gives more legalistic reasoning and support.

That JRM article is typical gloss really. I don't think anyone has said it is enormously difficult to leave the EU - what is difficult is what trading deals we do, with whom and when.

It looks like another 'unicorns for all' as soon as we serve art 50 which simply doesn't engage with the actual issue to any meaningful extent.

Obama says Trump unfit to be president

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36958126?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Yes, its frustrating that it keeps falling back on the idea that Remainers are lacking in political will or just simply moaning. Still. And still we ask, well what's the plan then? And still there isn't actually an answer.

Anyone can go on about how the Remain government should have had a plan for this situation, but it ultimately doesn't change the situation. Who is to blame, is now largely irrelevant in terms of the bigger picture.

I still don't get the criticism that I didn't have a vision for Brexit. As a voter, because I didn't want Brexit, and its not my responsibility to have drawn that up and no one else is stepping up to the plate after the fact to provide that either. I simply don't have that vision for the future, as my way of thinking is based on something entirely different. My thinking is based on something hard and concrete that has a clear road map to a eventual defined goal. I need something cohesive to get to grips with, even if its to start saying, look there's a problem, there's another one, can we make it better. Without it, I'm lost.

It is someone job to decide what that goal is. I am not getting any further democratic say in the matter and any noise I do make is regarded as moaning so of course I feel pissed off. It feels like I am simply supposed to start waving a flag in some patriotic nonsense which will suddenly make the economy massively better based on thin air.

This starts to be a failing of the current government pretty damn quickly I'm afraid - in the eyes of both Remain and Leave voters.

theintercept.com/2016/08/02/donald-trump-and-islamic-state-agree-no-room-for-people-like-khizr-khan/
This is slightly off tangent but relevant - I've just read this scary article on the Trump Gold Star Parents saga, and it linked to this Washington post article from earlier in the year which is here:
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
In it, it has this paragraph which has really struck me:
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.
This was written in May

It does leave me feeling, once again, whether we are actually living in a state which now is led by what is essentially a fascist ideology over and above all others, and we haven't even really realised it properly. This is the state of lack of awareness we have going on. We are not sleep walking into anything. We already did.

I know there have been plenty of 1930s comparisons, and plenty about the fact that the current government 'weren't democratically elected' but for the most part the over riding point is we haven't got there yet and it continually comes back to what will happen at the next election and 'letting UKIP in'.

The fact that I and other Remainers simply don't understand - or should I more correctly say - don't believe in Brexit that exists within this mentality of us being childish for not getting behind the idea only reinforces that idea that Brexit is in essence an ideology and not anything more in practice even now. The word, 'denial' keeps on cropping up, in reference to Remainers. The word denial, indeed infers a belief.

I am not in denial. At least no more in denial of the problem than anyone who voted Leave. I'm just not buying into something that has no substance.

The fact that Leave really doesn't have a structure still, only increases my worry as the blank cheque is still to be made out. People can say about its about immigration or sovereignty or long term economic benefits but without that definition, it is dangerous.

Even the phrase 'Brexit is Brexit' is about an undefined ideology against something rather a positive cohesive plan for the future which we can buy into and make meaningful contribution to. Brexit will solve everything is still the mantra.

It's the impossible dream.

The only thing we are missing currently in the UK model is this leader.

Brexit needs a shape and it does need one NOW if only to stop it being abused.

A republican congressman has come out in support for Hillary this afternoon too.

This is John Redwood's only slightly tongue in cheek analysis on how simple it is to extricate the UK from the EU legislatively.

johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/13/how-to-write-a-letter-using-article-50/

A bit of an alternate view to the "its impossible" pronouncements.

That Rees-Mogg article is like a student essay, really. A 1st-year one. Glib.

Red I understand the frustration and I agree with your identification of the risks in leaving "the Plan" a hostage to fortune. However I think it would be completely unrealistic to expect to be able to dictate the terms of our Exit to the EU and its fellow members. I think it is also generally accepted that it is an unwise negotiating tactic to openly declare all your cards at once. Therefore I think a certain amount of opacity is inevitable at the moment.

Brexit is in essence an ideology

I'm struck by this and wonder how much anger it will contain. Brexit looks more like a belief than something concrete. It's a state of mind with each instantiation of it being individual. However, if there's collective belief by all it can exist in all of its contradictory glory.

The problem though is non-believers. They sow doubt and there is fear that with enough doubt Brexit, like Tinkerbell, might cease to exist.

The point that I take issue with is that there was a credible Plan under Remain. If the proposition had been to fully sign up to the EU project or even to convene a 2nd tier of countries for the UK's "preferred" relationship that would have been a Plan. As it was there was a begrudged short term side negotiation conceding very little. While there were limits set on UK participation there was no route forward towards a more functional relationship for either the UK or the rest of the EU.

I still stand by my assertion that if a simple majority of the voters were unhappy enough to risk voting against the status quo there must have been something wrong with it. I accept that there was misselling on both sides but the Government Remain side definitely took full advantage of all its cards - probably / possibly to the extent of wildly overplaying its hand and clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Not read/watched this but Duncan Weldon recommends it. (Like him on Twitter - was a thoughtful Remain after reporting on Greece crisis.)

www.voxeu.org/article/new-ebook-brexit-beckons

I still stand by my assertion that if a simple majority of the voters were unhappy enough to risk voting against the status quo there must have been something wrong with it

That's really dodgy reasoning.

I still stand by my assertion that if a simple majority of the voters were unhappy enough to risk voting against the status quo there must have been something wrong with it

I don't think any one disagrees with that. They disagree about the causes of the unhappiness.

How big would the majority have to be nauticant or do you agree with the PLP's assertion that democracy only matters when you get the right answer?

I have no problem with adhering with the result of the Referendum, I think we should. Whether it's right or wrong is a different matter.