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

[RedToothBrush]

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.

Me2017 I'm afraid I also have seen an increase in racist abuse both in the extremely diverse and tolerant place where I work and the rather less diverse and tolerant place where I live. In fact all the EU colleagues I have spoken to about this have told me the same story - been living here for 5, 10, 20 years and never received any abuse until this summer.

Do you have a link to the times/ft article about inequality? This runs counter to pretty much everything I've seen on the subject so it would be interesting to read. What dates/percentage of wealthy were they looking at?

The stock market by the way is soaring today

Can I just point out that this is due to the collapse in the value of our currency - most (about 75%) of the money made by the FTSE100 companies is made in foreign currencies. If the pound falls, the share prices go up - very like a see saw. The further bad news is that the income you can get in retirement with your pension is much lower than it was earlier this year (when it was already at historically pretty low levels) - again due to the referendum's effect on interest rates and bond yields.

In fact all the EU colleagues I have spoken to about this have told me the same story - been living here for 5, 10, 20 years and never received any abuse until this summer.

I would also point out (to counter the argument that incidents have been over-reported this summer due to greater awareness) that in my experience most people who experience abuse do not report it. What is the point of reporting that a group of huge men called you a racist name and barged into you, or driver sped past shouting at you if you didn't catch the number plate, for example? So it is more likely that the incidence of racist abuse might be under reported.

Merry mouse: I totally agree with you. Cultures can change.

Missmoon on the inequality point, I had listened to More or Less recently, and the IFS had figures where earnings inequality has increased, but income inequality has sortof reduced due to pension incomes increasing. But then they also have a very confusing and mixed picture (since Maggie Thatcher's time) where the really rich have got richer (inequality up) but the poor and comfortably off are getting closer (inequality down).

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m7z12

I would like to see some numbers as I don't entirely understand the picture and I don't really understand why inequality is such a focus rather than other measures but that's for another day

Even the World Bank admits that income inequality in developed countries has increased.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37580844

"An internal briefing document seen by the BBC says the effects of globalisation on advanced economies is "often uneven" and "may have led to rising wage inequality".

Also, Thomas Piketty has done a lot of work on income inequality.
The bank, which provides loans to developing countries, also says that "adjustment costs", such as helping people who have lost their jobs, have been higher than expected."

Oh, and we do need to focus on income inequality, because it's one of the major drivers of support for right-wing ideologies in the developed world.

And... the point about Piketty's work shouldn't be in the middle of the quote from the World Bank document. Obviously.

Patty - do you think that's the only reason it's a big focus though: a reaction to its being exploited by dodgy populists? It does seem a useful measure but I (in comparison) more rarely hear of unemployment or child poverty or quality of life measures, which might be more relevant to people's actual lives.

Patty and Night, other measures (poverty, unemployment, education) are important too of course, and we need to address them using policy, but as Patty says the unique context of inequality is that it leads to social and political tensions, i.e., people are less concerned about being poor, than they are about being poor in relation to other people (lots of psychology and behavioural economics research to show this). In addition to Picketty as others have mentioned ("Capital in the 21st Century"), another excellent book on this is Enrico Moretti's "The New Geography of Jobs", which talks about the increase in geographical inequality, i.e., why we now have pockets of very high deprivation within otherwise quite wealthy countries. It's about the US, but the issues are very similar in the UK as well. I recently re-read it, and I thought it explains very clearly the tensions that lead to the Brexit vote (to do with globalisation, precarious work, low wages and immigration).

I'm going to add these to my towering pile of post-ref reading. That point on it being perceived, comparative poverty or lack of growth in wealth is a good one.

Oh god I've just realised that fat thumper of a Piketty book is already there, leering at me. Here's a distillation of the 700 pages which I will read, promise etc
www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains

I've been lurking on these threads and wishing I had something useful to add. I just feel sick to look at the news right now.

As if things weren't bad enough, now apparently Blair is considering a comeback: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584407

Hammond may yet prove to be our saviour from economic basketry.

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Here is Hammond recasting a key section of Theresa May's speech yesterday. Quite something that he had to do so

Links to a quote in The Times that reads:
He went on to confirm that he would continue to allow the Bank to use QE if needed. "I approved a round of quantitative easing back at the beginning of August as a response to the shock that the economy has felt. But we are conscious of the impacts that quantitative has had and we will use it carefully and cautiously."

May if you remember, had a right go at QE in her speech. Seems even she can't do what she wants without the approval of her 'bank manager' as Hammond is nicknamed.

More results:
Exmouth Brixington (East Devon) result:
CON: 41.1% (-2.4)
IEDA: 31.3% (-2.6)
LDEM: 27.6% (+5.0)

Garscadden (Glasgow) first prefs:
SNP: 42.6% (+15.6)
LAB: 38.8% (-22.8)
CON: 10.2% (+7.6)
GRN: 4.8% (+2.1)
LD: 1.9% (+0.8)
UKIP: 1.7% (+0.8)

Tim Ireland ‏@bloggerheads
Word reaches me that local councils are already contacting firms with questions about how many foreign workers they employ. It begins.

And in response to that Sarah Hagermann tweet

Will Jennings @drjennings
Heard the same from another academic who is English but a dual national. Really chilling stuff.

Btw, it doesn't matter if this is true or not. There is now a 'moral panic' over it. Perception is everything, as we should have learnt in the ref.

(A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media." The media are key players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic.)

"[Blair] said the public faced a choice between a government pursuing a "hard Brexit" and an "ultra-left" Labour Party whose policies were out of date" .
As much as I hate him, Tony Blair is absolutely right here, but he is too tainted by Iraq. Let's watch this space, but there is a gap to be filled at the moment for many of us

I don't disagree with you smallfox - although it could be argued that even the 2008 crash was down to government policy (lack of regulation in the money markets, a giant international Ponzi scheme feeding the "boom" which our government was happy to take the credit for in the good times and leading to the eventual crash) - and certainly our austerity driven approach to "recovering" was a deliberate government policy.

But it most certainly wasn't down to "immigrants".

A vacancy right at the top of the law system. When May is saying stuff about the law undermining democracy and Amber Rudd is proposing illegal stuff.
www.facebook.com/JoshuaRozenbergQC/posts/204561123299145

www.itv.com/news/2016-10-07/tony-blair-hints-at-possible-return-to-british-politics/
And Tony Blair shows his delusions and megalomania once again. Will you please just FUCK OFF under a rock Tony!

The issue with earnings inequality is that it depends on what bit of the distribution you look.
1970s to mid 1990s - fast rise in inequality between high and middle and low and middle earners and between high and very high earners
late 1990s onwards -stability (or even compression in some years) between the bottom and the middle and between the middle and moderately high earners (teachers, doctors etc). But overall inequality figures go up because of a dramatic increase in pay right at the very top. Until the last 8 years or so I used to tell my students that the 50% tax rate would not raise very much money because there were so few really high (>£100,000) earners. This is no longer the case. This means that you can make a story of falling and of rising inequality.

What the data does NOT support though is the idea that low earners fell further behind over the last 10 year or so. It was the 80s that did for them not the noughties

The 50% bracket is something of a fallacy in its own right though. You can be in the 40% bracket and end up more tax in the end because those who earn over £100,000 can afford accountants.

That's why the richest have got richer. Its the Amber Rudds and Andrea Leadsom that are the issue - basically anyone paid via dividends rather than salaries. The 50% bracket simply encourages this behaviour.

The trouble is that closing the loop holes just encourages people to go off shore / move business else where. Unless its done in cooperation with other countries who are competing for that revenue / jobs then it won't work either. It requires a cooperative approach (like an EU based one) - not a free trade one which merely encourages tax breaks for those at the top as an incentive to invest.

It was the 80s that did for them not the noughties

In or out of the EU, it's difficult to envisage a future that includes well paid manual manufacturing jobs.

Perhaps you have to look at the proportion of low earners in the population.

In 2015-16, only 56.2% of the working population in the UK paid income tax, which means that 43.8% earned less than £10,600pa (IFS).

To put a figure on the working population, in September 2016 there were 31.77 million people in work (ONS).

That's an awful lot of people on low pay.

The dividends rules have changed so that more tax is payable, but I think that will affect small businesses far more than people who have the funds to organise extensive tax planning. It's not just being able to pay the tax advisors, it's also having spare money to invest and move around. People who just have to spend money have much less flexibility.

I live in the North East and have a very high opinion of Geordies (my son is one), but I can feel very uncomfortable in the Midlands - where I keep getting told that I (white European) am ok, but the others should go home. I try not to go out on my own there (that sounds awful).

The Sara Hagermann tweet really hit me. I am a British / dual citizen, but as you all said it is more about the environment they create. We might try to get a Schengen passport for DH as well, but then will he lose even his UK work (he clearly loses the EU projects)?

Ashamed to say that I only got to p50 in the Piketty book. I just could not face it. I am too tired.

The Hartlepool by-election did not surprise me. Where is Mandelson when we need him?! [runs for the hill and prepares to get flamed]

www.rte.ie/news/2016/1007/822151-tony-connelly-walking-the-tightrope-irelands-b/

Interesting Irish report. It contains some assumptions based on May's speech - which is interesting in its own right.

www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-uk-government-told-the-lse-to-remove-non-uk-nationals-fr?utm_term=4ldqpgm&bftwuk#4ldqpgm
That developing LSE story.

Purge of the intellectuals who are not British.

Awaiting a leaver to come and explain that we are all hysterical and that the 1930s comparisons aren't valid..

Well?