Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders. Whilst Boris makes more daft promises, a50 hits the courts. Poo and Fan Time.

997 replies

RedToothBrush · 01/10/2016 15:39

There is no plan. Or is there?

We’ve talked on the last thread about how it’s being set up as ‘Hard Brexit’ or ‘Unilateral Continuity’ (dubbed here as the ‘Off The Top Of The Cliff Plan’) by the hard line Brexiteers either as the plan or the means by which to force a softer deal with the EU (which perhaps seems to be preferred choice of Mrs May herself).

The last few weeks have been plagued by comments by various members of the Cabinet over what Brexit means – comments which are frankly bollocks and show an outstanding world class level of ignorance – and have led to us being laughed at (Verhofstadt head of EU negotiations), facing outright anger and demands for compensation (Japan) and pure bewilderment (USA unless your name is Donald).

And they have been repeated contradicted and undermined by May in response with, the response that this is not government policy and she will not be giving a running commentary.

Thus making the UK look like the world’s leading political basket case whilst at the same time being ‘an excellent place to make new investment in’. Obviously. As long as you prattle the words ‘Free Trade’ a lot a bright new world of opportunity will open up. Just look at the Japanese position on that.

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

But really the reason why ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is still so vague, could be a legal one.

The next step in the Battle for Brexit, is in the courts and over whether the Royal Prerogative can be used to trigger a50 or whether May will have to first pass it through Parliament before she can notify the EU that we are leaving. This may prove to be a big hurdle for the government and one they have a real chance of losing particular the NI case.

The two big a50 challenges (though there are others) come from a cross party NI challenge supported by the NI Attorney General in Belfast and a crowdfunded ‘People’s challenge’ in the English courts. The NI challenge is characterised by a loss of rights and the international agreement that is the Good Friday Agreement, whilst the English challenge includes this as well as other acquired rights and concerns over the devolved assemblies and the Act of Union.

The government’s defence to this, which they sought a bizarre court order to protect and keep secret which was later overturned, is that ministers have better expertise to implement the start of Brexit than the courts (see Johnson, Fox and Davies), that it does not fall under parliament’s jurisdiction and that whilst the Royal Prerogative can’t be used to remove rights, because ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is so vague it’s impossible to challenge use of the Royal Prerogative because we don’t know precisely which rights will be affected!

The case for the government is also being presented by a relatively inexperienced lawyer.

However, some very respected constitutional law academics think the core of the government’s argument is sound, though this might be lost in the ridiculous other defences, the government have put along it. Their lead of the defence is a lawyer, who has little public law experience too.
The government need to win both these big cases, to ensure that they can use the Royal Prerogative. Don’t forget the likelihood of appeals regardless of the first ruling too.

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

Into the political void the Irish PM has stepped in to led discussions into the future of the island, the Japanese have issued a Brexit ‘wish list, the Spanish have staked a claim to co-sovereignty of Gibraltar (something rejected overwhelming in a referendum in 2002) and threatened to block negotiations otherwise, a French Presidential hopeless has kindly offered us another referendum, the USA have reiterated that they won’t do a deal with us until our WTO status is in good order and the Italians have said ‘No chance!’. This is the UK taking back control folks.

At home Ken Clarke has said that May needs to get her act together, George Osborne has said Brexit did not mean hard Brexit and Dominic Grieve has urged her not to sleepwalk into a hard Brexit. The Tory conference looks set for all out Tory War.

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

In a side issue the pro-Brexit newspaper, The Sun has come out in an editorial telling the Government to have the courage to pull the plug on the child sex abuse inquiry which was set up by Theresa May when she was Home Secretary, calling it a ‘farce’ and saying its scope was too wide and unmanageable… It might seem unrelated, but it calls May’s judgment and handling of large issues into question. If she allows it to plow on, it could turn into an even bigger farce and embarrassment, yet if she U-Turns it could make her look weak and have the potential to do the same over Brexit. She’ll struggle to throw Amber Rudd under the bus over the matter, because most of this happened on her watch. This will come back to haunt May. It also starts to question Murdoch’s position and opinion of May. Is this a withdrawal of support for her?

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

In summary, the next six to eight weeks are crucial to what Brexit looks like. It’s time for the shit to start hitting the fan. Brace yourselves for next couple of weeks. Get stocked up on the gin

We are not being led by UK politics anymore nor even internal squabbles really but the courts and outside forces which are shaping what is possible and achievable rather than what we want.

All talk is of a hard Brexit. It might well prove to be the case yet. We aren’t there yet though. There could be some more twists and turns yet.

An article 50 defeat in the courts for the government throws it back to Parliamentary scrutiny, taking up time and potentially watering down demands. It could even produce the result that a50 is deemed not fit for purpose and we have to go back to the EU begging for a new treaty for a way out (which technically they would have to do as they legally have to recognise democratic votes). This might be our only way to prevent a chaotic exit from the EU. This might led not to an exit though, but a two tier EU – a proposal suggested by, errrr Guy Verhofstadt, Head of EU Negotiations – and is very unlikely to prove to be the quick exit by 2020 that Kippers so desperately want. And a second referendum on the deal reached, in order to prove it was the will of the people. It could also prove a threat to the current government and raise the realistic spectre of a rebellion and a vote of no confidence and in turn a General Election.

Of course the EU themselves have a couple of their own headaches at the polls to survive too, whilst the German banks start to get the jitters. And there is the small matter of America having their own Brain Fart in the coming months, which could have a big impact on what happens next.

Yep, this is taking back control folks. What do you mean it feels more like a game of roulette? So might even say Russian roulette.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
29
TheForeignOffice · 01/10/2016 22:19

I know.

And it feels like I'm living in parallel universe where people of his level of deep unprofessionalism are actually representing the UK on an international platform in the most critical political process of our generation.

It's quite bizarre.
Lunatics really are running the asylum.

TheBathroomSink · 01/10/2016 22:40

Paper review on BBC news has just pointed out that despite headlines to the contrary, there is no UK law as Scotland has its own legal system. Would NS therefore have to agree to the 1972 act being repealed?

Peregrina · 01/10/2016 22:54

I also wondered whether the fact that repealing the 1972 Act was not in the Tory party manifesto,and supporting the Single Market was, would mean that the Lords could vote it down?

It would be good to see a Tory rebellion over this, from the Remain voting MPs, but they all seem spineless.

TheBathroomSink · 01/10/2016 23:07

Ah, political bloke on BBC just said technically it's not devolved to Scotland, but the 1707 act of union means one part of the union can't do something to another part that it does not want. Lawyers for Scotland are currently in discussions with lawyers for Westminster, so undoubtedly another legal challenge in addition to the one there already is.

Corcory · 01/10/2016 23:10

Thebathroom - but surely Scotland agreed the 1972 as a constituent part of the UK. EU law is not a devolved part of the powers of the Scottish parliament. Westminster enacts laws all the time that affect Scotland. All EU laws and regulations affect the whole of the UK equally and are not subject to discussion at Holyrood.

TheBathroomSink · 02/10/2016 00:07

I'm not sure, corcory, it was only a short piece and I've now taken refuge in CSI new york repeats on 5usa.

I think he was saying that it's technically not devolved, but there's a decent argument to be made that Westminster can't force Scotland to agree by just repealing.

I'll be honest, I understand the politics more than the law, so I may have it wrong, I was just quite impressed with the fact that the paper review threw up an issue and they got someone on to explain more about it 20 mins later!

prettybird · 02/10/2016 00:28

Normally separate Acts (or sub-sections of Acts?) are passed in order for them to pass into Scottish Law - usually using Sewel Motions, which have to be agreed by Scotland.

Hence the whole constitutional muddle. While the treaty and the empowering legislation is not a devolved matter, the fact that it has impacted on so many devolved areas means the whole thing is a dog's breakfast.

So while just saying everything would come into "UK" Law to be repealed/amended at the UK's leisure might seem the "easy" thing to do, if those obstreperous Scots (Wink) refuse to play ball, it could end up being impossible not so easy after all.

The only people who will benefit from all of this are the the lawyers. They've got their work paid for cut out for years to come just trying to sort out this mess Hmm

Peregrina · 02/10/2016 00:31

Hasn't someone advised Theresa May about the situation with Scottish Law? Is this a way for her to pass the buck to someone else?

prettybird · 02/10/2016 00:49

She could threaten to scrap devolution (although I seem to recall that enshrining it in perpetuity was one of Cameron's "vows" after No won the Indyref - but not sure how he can actually do that in the absence of a written constitution, as any Parliament/Government can choose to repeal/change any previous laws as we are discovering) - and just impose the required laws via the Scottish Office (that currently emasculated place headed up by the single Tory MP).

However, that would be a nuclear option which would surely bring the end of the Union even quicker.

Alternatively, she could threaten to slash the Scottish budget and repeal the Barnett Formula. If she does that too blatantly, that too could accelerate the demise of the Union.

Methinks we're going to use the term FUKD a lot this thread Wink

Peregrina · 02/10/2016 01:09

Would the Scots be able to declare UDI?

What will happen to N Ireland? I could see a United Ireland coming about within the next 10 years.

Gibraltar will end up being governed by Spain as an autonomous territory.

prettybird · 02/10/2016 01:19

In theory, Scotland could I suppose declare UDI (indeed, some of the more radical Independence supporters chunter on about it every so often as an option), but it's not something the Scottish Government/the SNP (leadership) has ever seriously considered.

Not least of which is the EU aspect, as they want to do things constitutionally, to minimise the risk of countries like Spain vetoing its membership.

Support for independence would need to be a lot higher - consistently a significant majority - AND Westminster be actively blocking a 2nd referendum before UDI would even be a realistic option. It would need to have a strong enough case (measured by support for independence) that the UN would be getting annoyed with WM for blocking the Scots right to self determination.

I don't see it happening.

HesterThrale · 02/10/2016 06:53

Bernard Jenkin advocating a quick exit without a deal, as there's no guarantee we'd get a good deal after negotiating anyway.

'So we must be prepared to leave without any formal agreement if necessary, or the Commission has us over a barrel.'

Seems very risky. We'd have absolutely no leverage if we did.

There's a definite whiff in this article of wanting to do it now quick before Remainers have the chance to delay it endlessly through legal wrangling. Fear that it could be prevented beyond many Brexiters lifetimes?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/01/brexit-clean-quick-break-article-50-bernard-jenkin

missmoon · 02/10/2016 07:29

The Bernard Jenkin article talks about keeping existing zero tariffs with the EU after leaving, unless the EU raise their tariffs, then retaliate. However, under WTO rules a country can't offer another country a preferential tariff regime unless it's part of a free trade agreement or a customs / free trade area (the MFN rule). So this plan would be against WTO rules, or am I missing something?

missmoon · 02/10/2016 07:32

Not to mention non-tariff barriers, it's complete nonsense. I wonder who this "plan" is aimed at, because it won't persuade any trade negotiators or business people who deal with Europe...

TheBathroomSink · 02/10/2016 08:51

it's complete nonsense

Well it is written by Bernard Jenkin...

HesterThrale · 02/10/2016 09:52

Anyone watch the Andrew Marr Show? Chuka Umunna posting that TM said she'll trigger a50 by March 17:

mobile.twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/782501128881733633

prettybird · 02/10/2016 10:12

A Scottish lawyer friend has just posted this article (apologies if it's already been linked to) http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-referendum-topics/the-legislative-impact-of-brexit-on-the-uk-economy.html

...together with an acerbic comment about "the Secretary of state apparently telling senior judges and lawyers that their concerns were "mere detail" and that the people running the country have no interest in or understanding of the rule of law. Utter madness" Sad

I've asked him the question about Scottish Law via UK law and whether the government can "incorporate EU law into UK law" as simply as they seem to think Hmm

Nightofthetentacle · 02/10/2016 10:30

Yep, article 50 to be triggered by end March, according to May.

We are -FUKD

TheNorthRemembers · 02/10/2016 10:49

Re: Referendum in Hungary on migrant quotas might be unsuccessful, as turnout is very low by 11 am. It happened in the past with Hungarian referenda. People do not like to answer stupid questions.

CousinCharlotte · 02/10/2016 11:09

I'm going to stock up on my fav Chilean and Argentian wines, in case the price rockets or it becomes scarce and falls foul of the trade deals.

Mistigri · 02/10/2016 11:27

Yep, article 50 to be triggered by end March, according to May.

This is nothing new though is it? She has said early 2017 all along.

I can't help thinking that this weekend's news is just more smoke and mirrors, it's just red meat for the baying hounds at the Tory party conference (and the non-Dom newspaper magnates) - but doesn't fundamentally change either the timeline or the practical difficulties ahead.

Of all of them, Hammond seems to be the only one living in the same reality as the rest of us right now. Can't tell with May, who is either a very clever politician making the best of a bad hand,, or a very pedestrian one who hasn't yet grasped the complexities.

Mistigri · 02/10/2016 11:30

It's amazing how many leavers on Twitter think this repeal bill is the same as the IDS/Paterson plan.

What will the markets do on Monday? Pound's going to take a hit isn't it? :(

EmilyAlice · 02/10/2016 13:46

Probably Mistigri. It is the day we get our monthly transfer from sterling to euros, so that would be just our luck. Sad

HyacinthFuckit · 02/10/2016 14:54

What will happen to N Ireland? I could see a United Ireland coming about within the next 10 years.

Come on, you can't imagine any more fucks to have been given about NI in making the spring decision than have been at any other point during this process. The correct answer is, who gives a shit?

Corcory · 02/10/2016 15:33

Prettybird - If all the UK laws have to be 'ratified' by Scotland why does NS not reject some of the other laws made by the UK government that she doesn't like. What about Trident? SN and the SNP are fervently against Trident so why don't they just reject that bill?
If they didn't/can't reject that then how are they supposed to be able to reject Brexit?

Swipe left for the next trending thread