Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
TheNorthRemembers · 07/10/2016 14:13

Red I am speechless. Before I became a British citizen my various employers worked for the MoD, BAE, etc. We all had to have security clearances and one colleague was Turkish, another Iranian... It has never been a problem. Paranoia is in the air.

prettybird · 07/10/2016 14:24

Re the RTE report: how come all those potential issues have been identified on these threads repeatedly, yet the Three Brexiteers (and May) seem still to believe in unicorns and everlasting cake? ConfusedHmm

TheNorthRemembers · 07/10/2016 14:27

Because they do not think. They just say the first thing that comes to their mind / mouth.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 07/10/2016 14:41

The political map has been redrawn. It is about certain beliefs. If you do not share those beliefs or if there is any reason that you may not conform then you are an enemy of democracy.

Part of this is the redefining of democracy. It is not consensus. It is not based on institutions and checks and balances. It is about the power of the executive. It is purely about the tyranny of minorities. Popularism.

I think the writing has been on the wall for a while in that sense. Blair started that process.

People do not understand civil liberties in the same way if they are the majority.

Expect the mantra 'a country that works for everyone' to become rather more Orwellian in nature.

OP posts:
Nightofthetentacle · 07/10/2016 14:54

I'd just like to say that Peter Mandelson is increasingly seeming like a lovely cuddly uncle and I have not found anything to disagree with in what he's said since the ref. So no shame!

That LSE thing is just frightening. Organisations though, they can do scary things even if the people within them are individually lovely and well meaning. (for example a number of companies I have worked with, who -without fail it seems- choose for redundancy the only pregnant woman in the department, without any justification, and then engage in furious arse covering and/or litigation afterwards).

RedToothBrush · 07/10/2016 15:02

Hansard, January 10 2008 Theresa May
The British population will increase to over 70 million by 2031, and at least 7- per cent of that increase will be down to immigration. What is the Government’s big idea on immigration? They borrow British National party slogans such as “British jobs for British workers” – even though everyone knows that would be illegal. Can we have a debate, in Government time, on Labour’s failed immigration policy?

The issues tell a bigger story. We have a Prime Minister with no long-tem vision, just short term tactics, and no serious answers, just spin. He spent a lifetime working to get to No.10, but now he has got there, he has no idea what to do.

May is completely aware of the law. As Amber Rudd will be, as she will have been advised by the Home Office civil servants.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen 4m
Can't help wondering if FCO in breach of public procurement law by insisting on UK nationals when commissioning services from LSE

So when you start seeing things like this, alarm bells should be ringing. Under EU law direct discrimination on basis of nationality can only be applied on security grounds. This use in itself is a worry as it suggests the government regards these academics a threat to national security.

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 5m
Really weird thing about this is Number 10 at G20 briefed that we were accepting Oz/ NZ actual trade negotiators

But they speak English, are white and are part of the Empire Commonwealth and are not 'hostile aliens' who support the EU Reich (Gove started that one not me).

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 07/10/2016 15:09

Lucy ‏@pastaforno03 10 minutes ago
@asanchezgraells @DavidAllenGreen @LSEnews would you mind taking a look at this screenshot and read the bottom. Job ad my hub received

Return of No Blacks, No Irish, No EU?

Westministenders. Whilst Boris makes more daft promises, a50 hits the courts. Poo and Fan Time.
OP posts:
OP posts:
hotmail123 · 07/10/2016 15:16

Between mid-1933 and the early 1940s, the Nazi regime passed dozens of laws and decrees that eroded the rights of Jews in Germany. Some were seemingly insignificant, such as an April 1935 edict banning Jews from flying the German flag; or a February 1942 order prohibiting Jews from owning pets. But others withdrew the voting rights of Jews, their access to education, heir capacity to own businesses or to hold particular jobs . In 1934 Jews were banned from sitting university exams; in 1936 they were forbidden from using parks or public swimming pools and from owning electrical equipment, typewriters or bicycles. Jews were also subject to cultural and artistic restrictions, forcing hundreds to leave jobs in the theatre, cinema, cabaret and the visual arts.

Nightofthetentacle · 07/10/2016 15:18

tbf HMGCC may or may not contain some spylike qualities. www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/05/geeks_guide_hanslope_park/

I think MI6 has similar existing recruitment policy (cos from time to time I like to consider a career change...)

hotmail123 · 07/10/2016 15:18

citation

alphahistory.com/holocaust/anti-jewish-laws/

Nightofthetentacle · 07/10/2016 15:22

The question I've been asking myself recently is whether: if the Nazis hadn't done the whole land war and holocaust thing, would people be ok with them being in power? And increasingly I think, quite possibly.

RedToothBrush · 07/10/2016 15:29

Yes upon reflection that probably is Defence related.

Anyway.

LSE on the 'Great' Repeal Act.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/07/on-your-marks-get-set-leave-the-great-repeal-act-is-symbolically-significant-and-legally-not-unimportant/
Author Kenneth Armstrong is professor European Law at Cambridge. I assume he is a British Citizen.

OP posts:
TheNorthRemembers · 07/10/2016 15:31

But what do my parents have to do with anything I do in my forties?!

Does that mean that my child will have a % on his Britishness? Does he count as British if his mother is not English? OK, so it is not quite the numerus clausus in the 1940s, but this is how it started.

I feel very offended. This is my home, and no cut price Nazi will tell me what I or my child can or cannot do.

Nightofthetentacle · 07/10/2016 15:34

Oh God - I have a vision of the future:

A: "Kenneth's on the case, is he?"
B: "Yes, yes, he's excellent"
A: "Yes, he is, but um, is he, [with emphasis] a British citizen ?"

hotmail123 · 07/10/2016 15:36

The German referendum of 1929 was important as it gained the Nazi Party recognition and credibility it never had before.

The Nazi party was the Reichstag's largest party in the 1932 election.

Germans who opposed Nazism failed to unite against it, Hitler consolidated absolute power.

The Nazis were elected.

TheNorthRemembers · 07/10/2016 15:45

I am very sorry for shouting in my previous post. But even for a defence post parents' citizenship is an outdated requirement. It may have been useful in the 1920s, but in this global world you do not want to restrict yourself like that. Loyalty does not just flow from ancestors.

PattyPenguin · 07/10/2016 15:52

SIS (AKA MI6) does indeed have the same policy.
www.sis.gov.uk/eligibility.html

So does MI5
www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/applying-for-jobs

Also GCHQ
www.gchq-careers.co.uk/recruitment-process.html

And details of eligibility for jobs at HMGCC are here
www.hmgcc.gov.uk/apply/

GloriaGaynor · 07/10/2016 16:06

Not forgetting the referendum to leave the League of Nations in 33 which was extremely popular with the public, who hadn't the remotest idea of the agenda behind it or the consequences.

I suppose when Theresa May holds a referendum merging the roles of PM and Queen we'll know we're truly fucked.

SwedishEdith · 07/10/2016 16:08

I may start ticking the non-British box whenever I'm asked now. A minor, but satisfying, act of civil disobedience. Imagine a concerted organised effort to screw up the national data about these things. Grin

SwedishEdith · 07/10/2016 16:11

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen 3m3 minutes ago
Understand there will be @foreignoffice statement very shortly on LSE affair.

lifeistooshort · 07/10/2016 16:15

twofingers your post really struck a chord as I am Hardeep. The number of times I hear that before the referendum or "it is not that we don't want immigrants it is that we don't want more new ones coming". Quickly followed by "but I am not a racist" and "don't call me a bigot"

GloriaGaynor · 07/10/2016 16:19

Maybe I will too Edith

And having applied for an Irish passport, I might go the whole hog and pretend not to be British at all.

prettybird · 07/10/2016 16:22

I usually tick "other European" when filling in ethnic monitoring forms or the census - even though I identify as Scottish.

If I analyse my heritage and add up the different proportions, I have more Germanic blood than anything else - but there is also very small amount of Irish (on my father's father's side), as well as Swedish and Dutch Afrikaans My father's mother was half German, half English, brought up in Denmark. My mother was born in Scotland by accident of Australian parents, who were probably majority ethnically English, but I don't know their family trees. (This is probably incredibly "outing" for anyone who knows me Wink). So since I don't know their origins except for, supposedly, Henry VIII a few centuries ago Wink but I do know my dad's tree, I go for "other European" - even though I wasn't born in Europe.

I do like the idea that this will muck up the national data Grin