Westministenders. Forget Boris. This is where Brexit starts to get real.

[RedToothBrush]

There is no plan.

Or is there?

Certainly Douglas Carswell seems to think there is, and that its being ignored by people.

Robert Peston, has apparently been reliably told that May’s Brexit means Brexit equals:

1. discretionary control over immigration policy;
2. discretionary control over lawmaking;
3. no compulsory contributions to the EU budget.

It would mean we could not be a member of the EU’s single market or the EEA like Norway. Nor could we have a Swiss type deal because of the requirements of free movement of people and contributions to the EU. This means we are headed to ‘Hard Brexit’ and a model closer to the yet to be concluded Canadian free trade deal.

He and others then went on to dismiss the idea based on other legalities, the time taken to get agreement and the fact it doesn’t include services.
The way in which trade deals are current done with the EU is that they are agreed by majority consensus unless they don’t fall within the current parameters of negotiation scope, which including services would do, and would therefore require the unanimous agreement of all 27 remaining members.

Not including services such as banking, lawyers and architects would leave us close to bust.

Certainly though, it looks like we are headed towards 'Hard Brexit' rather than a softer option. I wonder how many people voted for a hard exit? It is undeniably a minority...

The solution?
Well possibly the Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan or ‘Unilateral Continuity’ which apparently the Tory Right are getting all excited about as its being seriously considered.

It would effectively see us trigger a50 and then declare we were keeping everything the same. Minus paying into Brussels and Free Movement of People and EU law. It is actually currently the only option that fits with Peston’s report of May’s Three Pillars.

It would assume that we could assume our WTO status and this would be accepted without dispute by all 164 WTO members. Or at least with minimum renegotiations needed.

We would then declare our current trade agreements would stay the same in a ‘take it or leave it situation’ and taking the belief that law is on our side, meaning no one is likely to challenge it leaving us to just carry on trading as we are.

The problem with this is plan is not law but politics.

The plan would make us terribly popular as a nation (both with the EU and the rest of the WTO members) and ultimately could lead to the failure of the plan or bankrupt/destroy us in the process.

And Brussels insiders have already dismissed the plan, insisting it is illegal and would take it to court. The WTO yesterday also said the same thing when May said that the UK would become a 'free trader'.

There’s the rub. It might well be the case that the law is on our side in all respects. The truth is the EU really have no option but to challenge it. To not do so, would be crazy in terms of the continuation of the EU. What would be the point in making contributions to it, if you could get all the benefits without the apparent drawbacks? Surely it would at some point inevitably lead to the end of the EU?

What would happen in the meantime is the big question. We could get stuck in a battle where all trade to the EU was disrupted by a legal dispute. It would cause massive uncertainty for all concerned. And for how long.

What else could the rest of the EU do? They are entering the land of Shit Creek just as much as us.

Of course the threat of doing this, probably is our Big Bargaining Chip. Threaten the very existence of the EU and test the rest of Europe’s real commitment to it. The trouble is that of course the EU can’t be seen to give us a deal that good willingly so maybe it is the only option that the
UK has to achieve May’s pillars.

Interestingly this previously mentioned article directly refers to Unilateral Continuity as option b.

www.politico.eu/article/tory-dream-of-a-short-sharp-brexit-theresa-may-conservative/

I do think this back up the idea that this is the leverage idea to give us a hand to bargain with as in theory it means that the EU would be forced into a scenario where they either have to:

1. Accept the deal of unilateral continuity or propose one just as favourable to the UK which potentially might threaten the EU and undermines their own national interest (most likely reached through an EU Treaty of some description to avoid a50 and the hazards it raises for all parties) or
2. Allow the UK to go ahead with unilateral continuity and then challenge it in the courts – or force us to challenge a trade blockade - in the hope it would destroy the UK but might save the EU, however they might lose anyway getting burned in the process themselves by undermining their own national interest, and the EU might still be at risk of collapse.

It is a high stakes gamble. All or nothing. Quite literally. It’s very much British Imperialism returned. Irony of ironies.

The trouble is, looking at a50 we don’t have much room to do much else but grab the gun in the hands of the EU and wrestle them for it. Who, of the two of us, will end up being the death of when they get shot?

I note here, it means that we possibly don’t need as many negotiators as suggested nor possibly senior civil servants. It would mean 2 years or slightly longer is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Of course, we wouldn’t be THAT CRAZY? So say all the people who said we wouldn’t be that crazy to vote for Brexit in the first place forgetting we now live in the land of the crazy.

The only ray of light? The EU commission, France and Germany realise that creating a legal precedent is a worse option than making the case that the UK is somehow a ‘special case’ and they should therefore give us all our sweets and unicorns afterall. Thus proving that all us Remainers really were wrong all along.

The really big sticking point as to why it won’t work? Northern Ireland (and to a lesser extent Scotland), the fact we need Free Movement of People whether we want to admit it or not (for NI and certain industries like agriculture) and the practicalities of registering all current EU citizens so we can keep the new unwanted ones out.

It always comes back to these 3 points doesn’t it?

Nor does it take into account the issue of acquired rights and the legal position of British citizens abroad. Strangely enough, today May has ruled out the possibility of an 'Australian Style Points System'. Which is understandable actually as its completely unworkable and unenforceable due to the number of unregistered EU residents we currently have.

Nor does it take into account what the actions of MPs and Lords might take in blocking a50 and not playing ball. Indeed Merkel may be quietly waiting to see what happens for this very reason. Let the British play it out, see what they find, see if people oppose it and block it. See if the government does collapse as a result. Afterall, this option, is better for Germany than either a new EU Treaty or the Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan.

She would come out of it with her hands clean.

This is also why May will not make any announcement nor make any promises over EU citizens in the UK. They simply aren’t part of the plan. Not at this stage at least. So why bother talking about such a sticky issue?

And it also explains the lack of an alternative plan to Off The Top of The Cliff Plan too, at this stage. It’s all about who will blink first.

How she can say she wants something for the whole of the UK and then spends her time slagging off Scotland is beyond me.

She must be seriously rattled concerned that Scotland can cause problems. Proud as I am of being a Scot, we are only a tenth of the size of England and ultimately, she can force this on us in the name of the Union. Unless she is fearful that she can't......

I live in what has always been a safe Labour seat. Sort of place where a pig would win if it had a red rosette on. My vote has always been irrelevant, in the past. But I am ruling precisely bugger all out. One knows one's duty, in a Jacques Chirac 2002 presidential election type way.

I'm not a lawyer but from my non legal perspective, there might be an interesting conflict anomaly if TM decides to invoke A50 using the royal prerogative.

It's a constitutional issue: in England (and Wales?), the queen is sovereign, so she is within her rights to "agree" with what TM asks her to put forward. In Scotland, however, the people remain "sovereign" (the queen reigns with their consent in theory at least ) - that was why the barons that parcel of rogues had to hide while they signed up to the Act of Union, which they did in the "people's" name.

Westminster is the best flawed version of the "people" - so it needs to have its say.

Not that I think that Parliament will have the guts to do what is right for the country and will instead sleepwalk into allowing A50 be invoked.

I think you're right, pretty, a lot of MPs may jib if they think it will cost them favour with their leaders or votes with their constituents. I think Remain's hopes are with the Lords who don't have to worry about popularity and can delay the process considerably. Who knows what Europe will look like by this time next October with the French and German elections (and possibly a snap election in Italy) over?

Hearing about the people being 'sovereign' in Scotland, does anyone know the NI situation?

I sometimes wonder, (in passing, I don't lose sleep over it), what the Queen makes of all this. There was one year that she made a rather pointed remark in her Christmas message about being part of the United Kingdom. I think she would be mightily cheesed off to see a split.

I want Nicola Sturgeon to join George Osborne, Tim Farron, Nick Clegg and Anna Soubry in a new party of kick-ass revolutionaries...a crack team devoted to true democracy. They have more in common than they know, and can work out the finer details once May is out, I'm sure.

They shall be called "The Brexit Does Not Mean Brexit" Party.

True democracy is not well represented by a man who made the poorest, the sick and disabled pay for a financial disaster not of their making.

14,000 disabled people have lost their motabilty vehicles thanks to Gideon.

Please don't ever forget he's a cunt.

Everyone else on the list deserves applause.

(If only Sturgeon was head of Labour not SNP)

I've been thinking lately that the lack of togetherness from the Labour party is either consciously or subconsciously deliberate. They don't want to look too electable at this particular time when the only two options on the dinner table are either half a bowl of shit or a whole bowl of shit.

This looks bad:
uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN11W003

Don't know what the situation is in NI.

From the Queen's perspective though, she'd still be Queen of Scotland - the Union of the Crowns happened a century before the Act of Union (the Union of Parliaments). The plans for independence at the moment don't run as far as a republic

In fact, she's not really Queen Elizabeth II of the UK (that's what her advisors told her to number herself); she's actually Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland. In the same way, Scots will talk of James the First and Sixth. First of England, sixth of Scotland.

Hearing about the people being 'sovereign' in Scotland, does anyone know the NI situation?

1exagu1grkmq3k572418odoooym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Article-50-skeleton-final-redacted-names.pdf
Reading through the a50 litigation paper I posted about yesterday, the issues with Scotland and NI are

1. The Parliamentary Acts that created the devolved governments.
2. The Good Friday Agreement in its own right, though it is essentially part of the above. and finally
3. The Act of Union which relate to the joining of the Scottish and English Crowns.

The idea of sovereignty for NI is totally about Stormont and differs from Scotland because it is a modern day act. Whereas the question of Scotland is both a modern day one and one based on a long history.

Since British law is based on precedent I would hazard a guess that this makes it much more enshrined in British law whereas NI will perhaps require a precedent to be set in order to protect NI from being dictated to by Westminster over such an issue over sovereignty (I'm not a lawyer though so I might be talking nonsense here). I don't think Stormont's power in relation to Westminster has really been tested to date.

Also the various groups in NI are far from united in their opposition to Brexit. There are lots of different groups with very different agendas. This might in the end be NI undoing in a way. The NI parties find it difficult to agree on anything at the best of times almost as a point of principle, rather than because there is consensus on policy.

In Scotland, there is more or less a unified front and someone who really is providing an opposition to the idea of Brexit. This is much more difficult for May to deal with.

I think that NI perhaps has a stronger case for opposing a50. However Scotland perhaps poses the bigger issue in the long run. Overturning or rewriting the Good Friday Agreement and the devolution Acts will be hard, but since they are modern perhaps more doable. Undoing centuries of law regarding the Union with Scotland is possibly more difficult and goes way beyond a50. There are much more established rights in law, that NI has yet to show exist there too.

I think prettybird is right in saying Scotland rattles May.

I think a lot of the 'invoke a50 now' crowd, wanted it done before anyone could establish whether there was any legal obstacle and put us into a situation where we it would be retrospective and then impossible to reverse. May in deciding not to do this, has created a situation where the law is going to dictate issues rather than politics.

Reading through the a50 litigation, if it wins then not only does Parliament have to pass it, but it also will have to provide solutions/provisions/protections for many of the issues it raises - issues over rights that we have as EU citizens before it can be passed.

It gives plenty of genuine reasons and concerns for the Commons/Lords to reject it asking for modification with good justification. Problems will have to be established and dealt with before we are in a position where a50 can be triggered. Of course, Labour getting their act together on particular issues (even if they don't have an overall Brexit strategy) would be something of a real help here.

In doing this, it would also significantly weaken May's hand at the negotiation table too though.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
Query: would an equally as narrow Remain vote have been just as likely to lead to a Brexit in the medium- to longer-term?
Matt Emerson @Mattemerson
@DavidAllenGreen Over the past weeks I've become convinced that a narrow Leave majority was the only way we could have stayed in the EU...

I'm not sure I agree, with Matt Emerson's response, but I think its a fair comment that Farage and the Brexiteers would have kept going and going, until another EU crisis tipped the balance and it does raise the point that the UK has always taken the EU for granted and would have continued to do so, even in the event of a Remain win. So this situation was always going to rear its head at some point.

The question of the UK's relationship with the EU could only ever be tackled by having the crisis at some point - the issue was merely when it would arise. Cameron's handling of it was appalling, but ultimately it would still have ended up in a situation which was a total clusterfuck. It was never going to stay an internal Tory matter in the long run.

The UK could not stay in the EU without understanding it, but it also equally can not leave it without understanding it and this is ultimately always been the problem.

This Huffington Post article here was written by an SNP MP.

Doesn't say much more than has been pointed out regularly on these threads; wonder if she's been reading them

These are remarkable links:

judithknott.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/testing-times-for-the-civil-service-some-rules-of-engagement-for-the-brexit-departments/
As a civil servant in HMRC and HMT, particularly during 15 years working on corporate tax policy, I had frequent engagement with business. This ranged from CFOs and CEOs of plcs, through rep bodies including the CBI, to more specialised tax directors, lawyers and big 4 partners. The engagement generally involved a fair degree of challenge – tax has always been a contentious subject, even before it hit the mainstream media – and was more successful on some occasions than on others. But there were lessons to learn from each consultation exercise, and these crystallised around two fairly clear principles that would ensure that the process, at least, was constructive. These can be summed up in just two words: professionalism and openness.
The article goes on to talk about how we currently have neither.

mlexmarketinsight.com/editors-picks/public-rifts-brexit-show-split-government-departure-convention/
British diplomats are quietly urging European business leaders to ignore the statements of senior UK government ministers over Brexit, MLex has learned.
Only statements issued by the cabinet committee on Brexit, chaired by Prime Minister Theresa May herself, reflect UK policy, businesses have been told
And of course this article also expands on the points made in the first.

British law isn't based on precedent: English law is. Scottish law is, as I understand it, based on Roman law and has more in common with Dutch and South African Law.

And perhaps even more pertinently European and International Law are not precedent based.

Has this been posted yet? David Allen Green's 'Jack of Kent' blog. Some of the comments raise some fascinating points. e.g "What happens to data on EU citizens held in UK data centres, will UK registered companies be allowed to access and process it?
REPLY
Mike says:
26th September 2016 at 07:55
Google “data protection and brexit” for another sh*tstorm of legal issues"

Considering, I believe, that actually identifying who is an EU citizen, this is potentially, er, interesting.
jackofkent.com/2016/09/the-many-hurdles-of-brexit-a-short-summary-post/

I get the idea that in NI there is as usual a good deal of getting over themselves to accomplish first among politicians before any concerted drift can be orchestrated. 'Face' is really important in political life there. You can't back down from your position easily unless you have the stature of Ian Paisley. Lesser beings risk losing the support of the fringes unless the lesser beings are all seen to jump together. What is clear at this point is that nobody in NI has done any dancing on the tables as a result of the overall Leave vote across the UK, and parties are committed more than they possibly wish to admit to the GFA and thus the umbrella of the EU.

I have an impression that the NI legal case being brought against Brexit is being watched closely and politicians of all stripes will be able to publicly back opposition to Brexit together and build a loose yet definite coalition where Brexit is concerned.

British law isn't based on precedent: English law is. Scottish law is, as I understand it, based on Roman law and has more in common with Dutch and South African Law.

Does a50 fall under English or Scottish law? Or both? Is there therefore a potential clash in the works there too?

www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-uk-will-help-turkey-join-the-eu/?utm_content=bufferad56f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Boris Johnson: UK will help Turkey join the EU

WHAT.THE.ACTUAL.FUCK?

Is this to ensure we commit to Brexit???!

"Boasting that he was the “proud possessor of a beautiful, very well-functioning Turkish washing machine,” Johnson underscored the importance of the trade relationship between the U.K. and Turkey."

I can't find a link now, but he has in the past been very supportive of Turkey's attempts to join the EU.

Basically, ignore everything he says. He changes with the political wind.

Er, didn't people vote Leave because they were afraid of being overwhelmed by Turkey joining the EU? Oh no, sorry, I was wrong, they were not being racist, anti-Muslim, they were voting for £35 million for the NHS.

Quite, Peregrina.

£350 million for the NHS, Peregrina.

And BoJo is doing my head in. How can a state that has declared its intention to leave the EU have any influence whatsoever on what the EU does once it's no longer a member?