Westministenders Continues. The one where are being grateful for having a Boris rather than a Trump and UKIP show Labour how it’s done.

[RedToothBrush]

THE BREXIT FALLOUT CONTINUES - THREAD TWELVE

The calm of the eye of the storm is upon us. The signs are there that more trouble is ahead. What now for Brexit, the blank cheque for our future?

May’s honeymoon can only last the Summer, until she has to do some proper graft. Her Cabinet have all gone on holiday and to swat up on their new specialised subject, and by god have they got some homework to do.

Well, all of them apart from Liam Fox, who has bugger all to do for some time.

Johnson needs to… well we all know what Boris needs to do. Bend over and take it like a good boy.

Davies needs to learn the entire structure and workings of the EU and its variations of trade agreements and relationships with other nations. Juncker has the FUKD in his little black book of people who have crossed him (yes, he actually has one of these) and has put Brit Hating Barnier in charge of the EU Brexit team. Davies must somehow hold his own against this experienced EU hardnut. In French. Oh and find a permanent office.

What do the others need to learn? Hammond - how to perform a bloody miracle. Patel - it is illegal to use foreign aid as a leverage for trade deals. Leadsom – er everything? Rudd – how to do bigger assault on liberty and human rights than her mentor. Fallon – how we will afford to defend ourselves with pitch forks, especially if we can’t use Trident for some reason and it becomes necessary. Our enemy; Russia? North Korea? Turkey? Isis? Na. Trump if he wins.

Brexit is now officially in the hands Whitehall’s unbelievers. Those overstretched officials who are already saying there is a gap in their capacity to deliver what Parliament wants without additional the burden of Brexit. These discredited experts are left wondering if their challenge is, in reality, Mission Impossible, and this is made worse by the pressure that just about every senior Brexiteer seems to say is ‘easy’ despite all the mounting evidence to the contrary. Which is cold comfort to everyone who voted – Remain or Leave alike.

We still don’t even know what Brexit is. It is still something which has no coherent ideology and no clear set of prescriptions for what ailes us as a society. It is a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposes. Whatever the problem, Brexit can fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, Brexit can vanquish it, and it is unnecessary for Brexiteers to explain how.

May’s plan? Some say that she is the Dear Leader, some say she is an evil genius with Larry the Cat on her lap waiting for the Brexiteer Boys to fuck it up so we can Remain, some say she is blessed by the Ghost of Thatcher but we know her as The PM. –Sorry I’ve been itching to make the May/Hammond Top Gear gag for several weeks— The truth is, we just don't know yet.

Plus anything Brexit related about the Labour and UKIP leadership and the rest of the world thrown in to boot.

This is the quest for the answers that everyone wants and trying to keep an eye on those politicians and accountability (both here and abroad in the era of post-fact politics in the trail of Brexit). There maybe no single ‘truth’ but there sure as hell is a lot of bullshit to wade through. Get your wellies out, and plough on through with us.

No experience necessary. Sense of humour required.

-------------------------

Brexit Fall Out Timetable
Labour Hustings Nottinghamshire: Wednesday 17th August
Labour Hustings Birmingham: Thursday 18th August.
Labour Hustings Glasgow: Thursday 25th August.
Labour Hustings London: Thursday 1st September
UKIP Leadership Result: 15th September
Labour Leadership Result: Saturday 24th September
The Department for Exiting the European Union first question sessions in Parliament: Thursday 20th October
High Court hearing on a50: due 'no earlier than the third week in October'
US Presidential Election: 8th November
French Presidential Election 1st Round: 23 April 2017
French Presidential Election 2nd Round: 7th May 2017
German Federal Election: Between 27 August and 22 October 2017

Last thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/2690632-Westminstenders-Continues-Boris-is-having-a-bad-week-Corbyn-resists-Its-gonna-be-a-long-summer?pg=1

Mark Wallace ‏@wallaceme 59m59 minutes ago
V interesting - @LeaveEUOfficial doing phone surveys of their supporters. Last Q: "Do you think there's space for a new political party?"

Thought Banks had been a bit quiet recently. Although this would bugger up my plan to get rich writing Ukip:the sitcom and selling it to Dave.

Mind you, would any other Banks-funded party be less full of people utterly unfit to stand for any kind of public office?

Michael Crick ‏@MichaelLCrick 7m7 minutes ago
Nathan Gill allegations now being investigated by Euro Fraud Office Olaf, so N Wales Police say won't be "investigating the matter further"

www.ft.com/content/93321376-62f2-11e6-a08a-c7ac04ef00aa

I really should link this FT article by Matthew Elliott chief executive of Leave here too.

Its a good example of how to say bugger all.

The most recommended comments are fab.

These are my favs:
Incidentally,one noted German politician, Helmut Schmidt, is famously quoted as saying that "anyone having visions should see a doctor".

and
The proposition that Britain will flourish through championing free trade around the world "rather than being constrained to an outmoded regional bloc" seems questionable. Why is it that Germany, at the heart of the EU and subject to all its regulations, currently exports four or five times as much to China as the UK does? That would seem to suggest that being part of an "outmoded regional bloc" is no barrier to trading with the rest of the world - provided that you have the right things to sell at the right price. More rigorous self-analysis might suggest that there are deeper problems with the UK economy which Brexit alone will not address.

and
This is a piece of nonsense. It ignores every real practical issue and obstacle. It pretends they don't exist. This man is another of those who should be called to account by all those who will lose their livelihoods as a result of his ignorant posturing. The fact he needs to spout this polemical drivel when our country is losing markets, jobs, prosperity and security shows the poverty of his point of view.

and
Matthew, only Brexiteers, not having moved on from the 19th century, think that trading blocs are "outmoded". Most of the (real) world belongs to a trading bloc or proposes to join one:

NAFTA, GCC, TPP, Mercosur, ASEAN, CEFTA, EAEU, COMESA, etc

Although of course North Korea is not a member of any outmoded trading blocs...

and
I had written quite a long post about non-tariff trade barriers being by far the more significant element of any managed trade agreement (not FTA - there's no such thing in an international context) and the TTIP negotiations demonstrate this in spadefuls.

Instead I have decided to confine myself to this - what a plonker.

and
The usual platitudes 'dynamic'... 'redefine our relationship...' long-term vision'... blah, blah. But where does the author stand on one simple question: Inside single market and free movement or outside single market and border controls? All of the grown-ups know that someone will have to answer the question sooner or later

Amongst, many, many others. I really could read them all day long.
Its a delight to behold such an article full of bull shit getting the pasting it deserves.

There are even Brexiteers who are slightly pissed off with its emptiness.

Its made my Westminstender's Day.

Mind you, would any other Banks-funded party be less full of people utterly unfit to stand for any kind of public office?

In order to prevent this, he would need mass defections from the Conservative party and the Labour Party of people who are active in the community and willing to put in man hours running the party.

You can't 'just' magic up new people willing to engage in politics who haven't previously.

The Labour Party have found that a lot of their newer members don't tend to actively get out on the ground and do anything outside the comfort of their front rooms. Social media warriors are all well and good and are needed by they are not enough.

Why he thinks he can buck this trend I'm not sure.

There are also a few other minor problem with this plan. For starters the Conservative party don't have many members - indeed their lack of them has led to a lot of centralisation of the party and this is going to be a major hurdle for the party in future.

Not only that, but UKIP supporters and party members tend to be even older than the average Tory one. So he would need to engage with a whole load of younger people to extend the life of the party beyond that of the Conservative Party. A generation which the majority voted to Remain and due to their relationship with the internet and higher education levels have a much more outward looking nature and positive view of globalisation.

His only way forward, would be a scenario like the 1930s wherein the government screwed up Brexit so much and other parties failed to offer an idealistic alternative vision for youth which actually Corbyn has got tied up pretty well.

Some betting odds for you:
First Cabinet Minister to leave office (from Ladbrokes)

4/1 Boris Johnson
6/1 Andrea Leadsom
6/1 Liam Fox
7/1 David Davies
10/1 Jeremy Hunt
12/1 Priti Patel
16/1 Theresa May
20/1 Baroness Evans
20/1 Damien Green
20/1 Justine Greening
20/1 Karen Bradley
25/1 Phillip Hammond
25/1 James Brokenshire
25/1 Michael Fallon
25/1 Alun Cairns
25/1 David Liddington
25/1 Greg Clark
50/1 David Mundell

I must say that 6/1 sounds rather generous for Fox.

I'm more and more convinced that May is going to try to be seen to make a good fist of Brexit but will ultimately conclude (once she has an election under her belt and a large majority) that it ain't worth the aggro, shrug her shoulders and say: "We did our best but there was no deal to be had." No PM would voluntarily walk into the economic suicide that Brexit - soft or hard - is likely to trigger. Thirty two senior staff at the DoB speaks volumes about her commitment to it.

That's quite a persuasive reading of the '32 staff' news, lala.

I have long thought that May has surrounded herself with key Brexiters so that when it fails, she can deflect blame on to them.

I doubt myself often, though, largely because my DP (a Remainer and as gutted as I am) is convinced that she is going to make Brexit in some form happen; that she has a notion that she is in this to do public service (whatever cock-eyed version of that leaving the EU represents).

No PM would voluntarily walk into the economic suicide that Brexit - soft or hard - is likely to trigger.

Here's where I stumble a bit. I do wonder if she's more right-wing economically than she likes to let on (she was certainly quite hardline in the Home Office) and is feeling OK, or even excited, about the prospect of a hard Brexit because it would allow a deregulated playground for rich investors and business owners.

Here's where I stumble a bit. I do wonder if she's more right-wing economically than she likes to let on (she was certainly quite hardline in the Home Office) and is feeling OK, or even excited, about the prospect of a hard Brexit because it would allow a deregulated playground for rich investors and business owners.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/theresa-may-climbdown-obesity-junk-food-industry-public-health?CMP=twt_gu
Well, May going with the lobbyists rather than public health calls, tends to suggest she's all about the economy.

The last paragraph of that article reads:
Is May so frightened of presiding over a major Brexit-induced recession and losing the next election that she is giving business a free ride? If so, given the national mood, she’s making a serious mistake.

Hmm.

Matthew Elliott was on Wake Up To Money one morning this week (I've just listened to three episodes so I forget which day!) and had a nice long interview where he said not a lot at all, other than he's going to have to pay an awful lot of tax this year because he's rich, but he doesn't mind.

Why he thinks he can buck this trend I'm not sure. Egomania. He wants political influence and he'll do anything to get it. If it looks like he's losing control of Ukip, I can easily see him spending a bit of his own and a lot of someone else's money picking up whichever faction have fallen out with the leadership this week. And at the rate Ukip fall out with each other and break away, he'll probably have a hundred council seats within a year.

Charlotte Oliver @AVVCMJOLIVER
New Article 50 challenge lodged in Belfast courts today by Alliance Party, Green Party N.I., SDLP, and Sinn Fein’s John O’Dowd #brexit

www.rte.ie/news/2016/0819/810540-brexit-legal-challenge/
But the assurances they sought were not forthcoming and it is now their intention to seek a judicial review of the Brexit plans.

A second legal challenge in Belfast's High Court was launched by Raymond McCord, a victims' campaigner, earlier this month. Today he was assessed as eligible for legal aid.

Judicial Review?
Sounds a) expensive b) time consuming

I didn't think we had a Brexit plan yet!

I've just finished ploughing through the FT comments on the Matthew Elliot article. Now I would expect most readers of the FT to be small c conservative at least, so in that context the comments are astonishing. As usual the Leave camp have nothing but a vacuous 'we won'.

Peregina, there have been a number of articles in the FT which have had comments like that in response to articles which have had a similar tone and content.

The FT themselves actually came out as Remain. (As did The Times even though its Murdoch, and in contrast to the Torygraph which was Leave).

I think the papers followed what they thought the majority of their readers/subscribers wanted. By and large business and finance (FT) and AB (Times) leant towards Remain. According to the opinion polls, anyway. By the look of the comments above, that's what the papers were hearing from their readers.

The telegraph held out till the last minute before going officially leave, against the wishes of the readers. I think I read somewhere that aidan barclay didn't want to piss off Cameron because he was after a gong, so wanted to be seen to support the government.

peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/a-debate-going-nowhere.html
A leaver blog who admits the debate is going nowhere.
He claims that Remainers are pushing us into a hard brexit situation (?!)

Wrt the Manafort departure..
It seems very generous of the Ukrainian government to be sharing information about ongoing corruption investigations. The Manafort business is most interesting for what it reveals of cozy relations between US media organisations, the Clinton campaign and the government of Ukraine (which owes its existence to the Clinton State Department).

Manafort was an advisor to GHW Bush and also to very middle of the road former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, pretty much a GOP insider whose role was to keep Trump from bringing disaster on the party both in the presidential election and upcoming congressional and senate elections.

Lobbying is an integral part of American politics, as are 'non-profit think tanks'. What Manafort stands accused of is accepting money from then president Victor Yanukovych and his party via a non profit organisation set up as a front and via existing DC lobbyist firms, helping funnel money to lobbying firms, and not declaring the money. As if accepting money from the tobacco industry or from the NRA or from oil companies is ok as long as it's declared.

The US is the country where the Supreme Court struck down limits on federal campaign donations (in the decision knows as Citizens United) effectively clearing the way for corporations and interest groups to fund candidates of their choice and thus influence policy. It is not clear what corporation or interest group lobbied for the deposition of Yanukovych and the installation of the current Ukrainian government.

It's illegal for Ukraine to seek to influence policy without it being declared, but ok for people and organisations with money in the US to gain access that ordinary citizens can never hope for. Perhaps news organisations should be asking questions about businesses with interests in China and how much lobbying is involved in keeping concerns about Chinese human rights abuses downplayed or ignored.

Note, I am not and never will be a member or supporter of the GOP, and I am certainly no fan of Trump's, and would never vote for him. However, it's ironic that the Ukrainian prosecutor or anti corruption office has supplied information or claims to US news outlets that have already had an effect on US politics, but that is not considered to be a question of influencing American politics.

Just doing a bit of pondering here and trying to collate a few more of the potential hurdles to Brexit in a summary in prep for the next thread (yes already thinking on that as there's loads that's come out and I'm starting to loose track).

I was thinking about this public consultation on 'Lessons Learned from the EU Referendum' that I know others are looking to put forward a public submission to and with regard to the suggestion way upthread that there was a dereliction of duty by both houses with regard to the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and what conclusions this inquiry might end up drawing.

Surely, if one of its conclusions is, that indeed that the House of Lords and Commons somehow did have a dereliction of duty in the provisions they drew up in debating the provisions of the act or that there is a serious flaw in the wording of the question, then there is yet another avenue legally that might threaten Brexit?

I'm just trying to read through the scope of the consultation. To me there is a lot in there that could possibly raise massive questions about the EU Ref Act, even after the fact for this reason. Its not just speculation in the papers about how shit the referendum was or how Cameron was a twat who gambled with our future. This is a Commons Select Committee inquiry.

I don't think it would over turn the result in anyway, but it could damage its credibility in terms of how much it should be considered in its advise..

I've kind of raised this in another thread about how the question asked examined views about the EU but didn't explore views about what people were voting FOR instead. Only want they were voting AGAINST. It is therefore merely a measure of the level of dissatisfaction, and not necessarily approval of an alternative. There is everything to suggest that other questions along those lines could produce very different results - especially when the difficulty of managing Brexit states to really bite and that an alternative to the EU might indeed have proved to be even more unpopular.

The fact that there actually is this inquiry, means it will be published at some point, and the longer a50 is delayed the more important this could become in effect. A pro-Brexit government is most definitely not going to want the publication of this report before we take affirmative action to actually leave. It can only help to highlight the extent to which the result can only be advisory and not binding in the absence of a solid alternative.

I can't help feeling there is no way that it will strengthen the result or be viewed as a successful or positive conclusion given the multiple constitutional crisis we now find ourselves in and that any result could effectively would have raised questions about democracy and legitimacy.

Whilst everyone is now saying that a second ref is out of the question (and I sure as hell don't want another, due to how flawed this one was), what effect is the conclusions of this inquiry going to product?

I really don't know the answer but I don't think its favourable to Brexit.

Red - Still following this thread with avid interest - so much good information.

I was interested to see the news about the public consultation on Brexit. It looks like the Committee asked for it on its own initiative.

I do wonder however how critical of the Brexit referendum it might be given that it is chaired by Mr Bernard Jenkin (Conservative) who was pro-leave. He said on his website pre-referendum: "Brussels makes far too many laws. It has far too much power to dictate our laws. That’s why we need a referendum on Britain’s EU membership.

It also has on it David Jones MP, now Minister for Brexit and former Minister for Wales who said: "I have no doubt that there is a real appetite in Wales for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Recent polls, in fact, have shown that Wales is even keener for a ‘Leave’ vote than many other parts of the country. With just over six weeks left to campaign, my colleagues and I will be taking the ‘Leave’ message to every corner of Wales. Wales, and the rest of the United Kingdom, can look forward to a more prosperous, more outward-looking future, outside the European Union. This is an exciting moment for all Welsh people.”

I haven't checked out all the other members and I imagine there might be a mix but with those two on it I would expect weak criticism of the referendum at best. That is a shame as there is plenty in the referendum to criticise.

Referendums are unusual in GB politics and therefore taken very seriously so it isn't unusual at all that almost all MPs have said the outcome must be respected. Other countries have them far more routinely or have re-runs by default.

I disagree with this suggestion.
Ireland is a country that has held quite a few referenda, as Ireland has a written constitution and a feature in the constitution that allows direct input by voters when there is a proposal to change or revise that constitution. One or two referenda have been re-run because Ireland has a Referendum commission that ensures impartial advisory information is disseminated to voters, and if that was not done the result can be questioned. Ultimately the effect of the safaguards is to uphold the seriousness of referenda and the binding nature of the results,while the referendum clause itself serves the cause of direct democracy and confidence that voters' voices are heard.

It struck quite a few Irish people that the Brexit referendum was run in a completely amateurish way, with no threshold, no commission to ensure that campaigning was honest, no timetable set forth for the aftermath, all sorts of unanswered questions about whether the referendum was advisory or binding - a complete shambles. There were suggestions that Britain perhaps thought it couldn't learn something from lowly Ireland and how affairs are managed there.

Lessons learned from the EU Referendum:

1. Don't have one, especially not as a way to pacify some of the more troublesome MPs in your party. Offer them the ambassadorship to Vanuatu or something, anything but give them a referendum.

1. If a referendum is unavoidable, make it clear that it is only advisory and if the outcome will cause the country enormous political and economic instability then it may not be implemented.

1. When designating official campaigns, ensure that each campaign has a clear vision of what their preferred outcome would look like, before they are allowed to spend any money on campaigning.

1. Do not allow official campaigners to appear at events with members of unofficial campaign groups funded by dodgy millionaires backed up by stage hypnotists.

But preferably 1. You were elected to make hard decisions, just do your job.

Are all our former Tory overlords having breakdowns?!

Why Osborne’s ‘Rambo’ outing is not the way to go after Brexit blow
link

... But given that point, I think it would be a huge mistake not to hold Parliament accountable for the form Brexit ultimately takes just because the referendum went one particular way. The process and the negotiations need to be open, and consultation and debate should inform those tasked with accomplishing it. The referendum question as put to the public was only a YES/NO choice. The nuts and bolts of the consequences should now be subject to scrutiny.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Bernard Jenkin – Harwich and North Essex (CON)
Ronnie Cowan – Inverclyde (SNP)
Oliver Dowden – Hertsmere (CON)
Paul Flynn – Newport West (LAB)
Rt Hon Cheryl Gillian – Chesham and Amersham (CON)
Kate Hoey – Vauxhall (LAB)
Kelvin Hopkins – Luton North (LAB)
Rt Hon David Jones – Clwyd West (CON)
Gerald Jones – Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (LAB)
Tom Tugendhat – Tonbridge and Malling (CON)
Andrew Turner – Isle of Wight (CON)

I'd say there were some very interesting people on that committee.

I think going back to an early point that Theresa probably doesn't have some sort of plan, she is probably muddling through trying not to rip the country or her party apart. She is a serious, ambitious politician - who could not resist the challenge. If she gets it right her place in history is assured, if it all goes tits up then she has got all the patsys lined up to take the fall. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I think when you get to the top of your tree it all becomes a bit of a game, all surreal. Easy forget to the life changing consequences for millions of people for your actions and decisions.