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
Mistigri · 09/10/2016 10:13

I wonder will all of this just bring more Trump support out of the woodwork

I doubt it at this stage. It's clear that Trump's base will vote for him literally no matter what he does or says, but elections are decided by the undecideds and the independents who occupy the middle ground. Any voter who has yet to make his or her decision is highly unlikely to choose Trump at this point; they will stay at home or vote for one of the other three. Since HRC currently has an approximately 5 point lead (and that's before polls start to reflect this week's events) it puts her in a strong position. Not unassailable - she still has to get her voters out - but strong.

As for Brexit, Starmer's pitch seems pretty sensible in the circumstances. But it won't make any difference. IMO Brexit will be defeated by Tory division and disarray, if it is defeated at all. Still, it positions Starmer to have a shot at being the guy who clears up the mess in a few years' time.

lalalonglegs · 09/10/2016 10:39

Back to the South China Morning Post article - it was absolutely excoriating. And if the Chinese can't high-five a bit of ruthless authoritarianism, it's hard to see how Queen Theresa's imperiousness will go down elsewhere. ("May herself has a record of small-mindedness from her years as home secretary." Shock)

Yay, Mistigri, bring it on.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 10:45

Clinton will have a hard time passing anything or getting anything done if the GOP do well in the Senate and Congress. Totally agree she is easier for them to manage and control than Trump.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tasteless-nigel-farage-donald-trump-9009982
Tasteless Nigel Farage claims Trump's slurs on women are just 'the kind of thing men do'

Of course refugees are NOT allowed to grope if you remember what else Farage has said. I guess the policy is ‘British Pussy for British Men’ rather than defending women.

This is obviously the direction we want the UK to go.

Anyway back to the UK.

If the last week was about promoting the idea of the Empire, then Darth May is in for a shock as the Rebel Forces are out in force today.

Both the Times and Observer Editorials fight back against the Little England rhetoric and swipes at liberalism.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-need-to-work-for-an-open-brexit-jn0hq9zr8
The Times Editorial: We need to work for an Open Brexit

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/08/observer-editorial-theresa-may-britain-post-brexit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Observer editorial: Theresa May has no mandate for her Little Britain. There are far more important things at stake.
Just as in the time of Tom Paine and the American and French revolutions, it is a battle for equality, justice and tolerance, for the proud liberal principles of individual freedom, openness and inclusion. It is a struggle between the forces of reaction, prejudice, ignorance, dogmatism and self-interest and the universal vision of progressive societies in which the rights of all men and women are respected and advanced. It is an ongoing historical contest that everyone who cares about a fairer society must now steel themselves to fight again – and by all means, win. For here, not on Brexit’s wilder shores, is where Britain’s centre ground truly lies.

Indeed it seems that May has managed to do what the Stronger In campaign completely falled to do; bring out an identity and cross party unity for liberal open minded values as being both British and of the World.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3828878/Chancellor-Hammond-fears-bull-China-shop-behaviour-3-Brexiteers-Davis-Boris-Fox-wreck-UK-s-exit-EU.html
Chancellor Hammond fears the 'bull in a China shop' behaviour of the 3 Brexiteers Davis, Boris and Fox will wreck the UK's exit from the EU

One source close to the Chancellor said: ‘Davis can be very aggressive but being aggressive to Angela Merkel does not work. She responds to reasonableness.

‘Philip’s view is that Davis should have nothing to do with the negotiations. They should be done by officials until the final stages when Theresa May will take over.’

Daily Mail. Does not attack Hammond. Though nor does it particularly offer an editorial that gives him a lot of support either.

It also mentions as a side note that May is off to Spain on Thursday to talk about Gibraltar.

The Andrew Marr Show ‏@MarrShow
Ken Clarke says pound keeps falling "because nobody has the faintest idea what we're going to put in place" #marr
Mirror Politics ‏@MirrorPolitics
Ken Clarke has a pop at Liam Fox on #Marr saying you can't advocate free trade but say you want to leave the single market.
The Andrew Marr Show ‏@MarrShow
"Thatcher revolution & joining the EU gave us the quality of life we take for granted today" - Ken Clarke #marr

Kevin MaguireVerified account ‏@Kevin_Maguire
Prominent Brexiteer tells @NigelNelson interest rates should go up from 0.25% to 2.25%. Going well, this EU quitting
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nelsons-column-its-carney-barney-9007313#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Rees-Mogg alert. He is advocating interest rates go up a quarter per cent every quarter until mid 2018.
I wonder if he knows how many people will loose their houses if this happens?

On Peston on Sunday this morning they have looked at the possible rebellions May might have on her hands:
They think they have 20 – 30 Tory MPs against Grammar Schools, they think there will be a Lord Rebellion on the ‘Great’ Reform Act Lords and most interestingly that there are 20 Tory MPs against the Heathrow Airport Expansion leading them to speculate that it will need to be framed as a free vote to protect May’s head for the chop.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nick-clegg-conservatives-brexit_uk_57f9f6f6e4b02213e9540c03?
Nick Clegg thinks the Conservatives are in ‘terrible trouble’ over Brexit

And also has a long read for the Democratic Audit this morning:
www.democraticaudit.com/2016/10/09/long-read-review-politics-between-the-extremes-by-nick-clegg/

In Witney one of the independent candidates is pictured on twitter today endorsing the Lib Dem candidate in order to defeat the Tories.

www.msn.com/en-gb/money/companies/brussels-slams-the-door-on-uk-companies/ar-BBxbi8n?ocid=spartandhp
Companies shut out of Europe already
The Brussels representatives of some of the largest FTSE 100 companies are finding that calls go unreturned, discussion papers are not shared and invitations to key meetings are no longer extended. One source said: “We’re finding now that nobody will take our calls. Britain is still a member state but we can’t get a hearing.”

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jean-claude-juncker-faces-legal-challenge-from-british-expat-over-brexit-talks-ban_uk_57f902bfe4b01fa2b9042570?
Jean-Claude Juncker Faces Legal Challenge From British Expats Over Brexit Talks Ban
This is an interesting development... legal challenge against the EU over Brexit now.

Stuart Farquhar‏@StuartSFarquhar
Show us your research two days before publishing, government orders academics
schoolsweek.co.uk/academics-must-show-research-to-government-two-days-before-publishing-say-new-dfe-rules/
Academics get nervous that they might be censored, such is the mood at the moment.

Tony Robinson ‏@Tony_Robinson
@realDonaldTrump My Lord, I have a cunning plan...
Hip_Hoppopotomus‏@Floriduh_Man
@jimmystagger @Tony_Robinson As a boorish Yank, will you please explain the inside joke to me?
Tony Robinson ‏@Tony_Robinson
It's a hard to explain but I used to be in a cult uk comedy series in which I was an idiot who had useless plans
Question is, which of the Brexiteers is also telling May this right now?

With the both the NI and 'People's' a50 challenge in court this week as well as that visit to Spain over Gibraltar (when May won't be able to keep an eye on things back home) this week's shit storm is going to be hurricane force.

Bring. It. On.

OP posts:
Mistigri · 09/10/2016 10:48

Clinton will have a hard time passing anything or getting anything done if the GOP do well in the Senate and Congress. Totally agree she is easier for them to manage and control than Trump.

We don't know yet what the implications of the current Trump débâcle will be on down-ticket voting intentions. The republicans are certainly worried, which is why they are pulling support from Trump.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 11:14

The frightening thing is how turn out could screw things up. Clinton is not loved. If people make the assumption Trump is out of it, his nutter supporters might beat lukewarm Clinton support. Clinton still needs to get the vote out.

OP posts:
whatwouldrondo · 09/10/2016 11:18

To give some context the SCMP targets expats to a significant extent so the Bowring article is probably not so much reflecting how the Chinese feel as expressing how expats (and the biggest expat group in Hong Kong is American), who are at the coal face of international trade are feeling. Equally sad though.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 11:27

Another interesting article which relates to Brexit in a way:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/09/technological-revolution-sparks-social-unrest?CMP=twt_gu

The technological revolution sparks social unrest.

One thing that's not lost on me is just how many EU citizens living here are involved in technology and can not be replaced by British workers.

OP posts:
lalalonglegs · 09/10/2016 12:18

Government U-turn on naming (and shaming) foreign workers. Thank God.

lalalonglegs · 09/10/2016 12:20

As an aside, I was listening to BH on Radio 4 this morning and one commentator was saying that the government must be aware that there isn't a cat in hell's chance of getting foreign worker lists (or grammar schools) through the Commons, never mind the Lords.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 12:59

lala, its not a U-turn. Please do not characterise it as one. They are sticking with the idea. The only difference is it will be a secret list, not a public one. This is little better. It is a huge security risk. Databases of this been proposed before too, only for these challenges over civil liberties and technology to turn out to be a massive financial waste of money. They are Orwellian in nature regardless of whether they are private or public. Lists of this nature made with the best intentions always are misused. How long before the data it contains becomes a valuable commodity which the government see as an asset to sell for example. Once these start they start in other areas of life too. On this and the xenophobia thread there has been discussion about the comments Rory Stewart has made about ‘the people being sick of experts’ with regard to decision making. Yet broad as daylight we have another idea which de-humanises and reduces decision making to facts and figures – the very thing that actually appears to have been a huge motivator for the Leave vote in the first place.
As I say, it is not a u-turn. It is a climb down on its scope but it’s a drive hard straight right.

OP posts:
lalalonglegs · 09/10/2016 13:10

I disagree, I believe it is what is called a "managed retreat": the government doesn't want it to be seen as as a complete U-turn but I quote from the 1 o'clock news "Michael Fallon says that the government does not in any way wish 'companies to list or name or identify their of foreign workers'." I am certain that the policy will be quietly dropped amid some face-saving waffle about administrative costs outweighing benefits or some such. As mentioned earlier, I don't think it stands a chance of making it through Parliament anyway.

Peregrina · 09/10/2016 13:11

No, the lists of foreign workers are not a U-turn. It's just that the Government has been shamed on a world stage. The only way IMO to defeat this now is for firms to send in information which is clearly garbage.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 13:28

3 Martians, 2 Narnians, 1 Vulcan and a Scot.

Ok.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 13:39

Its almost as if the list idea was from the same mind as the person who thought up and trialled these things

Westministenders. Whilst Boris makes more daft promises, a50 hits the courts. Poo and Fan Time.
OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 13:43

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3828927/I-ll-defy-order-blow-12billion-foreign-aid-vows-Priti-Patel-hits-spending-spree-waste-corruption.html

Ah so we now have the reason Patel was given her department. She's going to break the commitment for foreign aid.

Oh course, there will not be the public outcry to stop this one.

OP posts:
smallfox2002 · 09/10/2016 13:45

I think there should be!

merrymouse · 09/10/2016 13:47

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/09/amber-rudd-hate-foreigners-foreign-workers-companies-racist

David Mitchell column - basically saying that the list idea implies that British workers are crap: unless you are paying immigrants really badly (in which case raise minimum wage), there are already hurdles to employing people from abroad (language, admin etc.)

jaws5 · 09/10/2016 13:50

Priti Patel confirming once and for all what a puppet she is. Shame on her. The reputation of this country is on course to be trashed forever.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 14:02

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.^
JFK inaugural speech.

Quite a striking read in contrast to May's Conference one.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/05/theresa-mays-conference-speech-in-full/

Back to the 1950s it is.

OP posts:
merrymouse · 09/10/2016 14:30

Sunday Times leader:

"A Tory conference that should have been a celebration for Britain's second female prime minister, with all her political opponents in various states of disarray, helped to send the pound tumbling. Markets interpreted the prime minister's remarks and those of her colleagues as pointing firmly towards an unsuccessful Brexit thst will leave the economy holed below the waterline".

Well, yes it is difficult to reconcile UKIP policies with actual reality. Whatever the ins and outs of why individuals voted for Brexit, there is no doubt that politically the point of the referendum was to stop the Tories losing votes to UKIP, and May was talking to those people at the conference.

Is she going to eventually move away from them and try to reconcile with business?

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 18:02

If you remember Prof Mark Elliott said in a blog that the government's defence of the a50 challenge was sound a week or so ago. (Elliott's previous critique of a50 is here)
He has written another blog today on whether the a50 decision has already been made in relation to the case. He draws conclusions that are somewhat different and show just how certain lawyers are of the outcome.
publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/10/09/on-whether-the-article-50-decision-has-already-been-taken/
Just to put this article into a little context, today has seen a massive push by cross party MPs to have Brexit debated in parliament.
Not only this but the House of Lords Constitution Committee report www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/44.pdf
does state that every stage of the process should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Elliot wrote a further blog post on the report, which gives a summary of it.
He states the report states:
publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/09/13/the-house-of-lords-constitution-committee-reports-on-article-50/
The Committee accepts that the referendum result is clear and therefore must be implemented, but it is also firmly of the view that Parliament must be involved: “The Government should not trigger Article 50 [TEU] without consulting Parliament.”
It seems, to me that that Mark Elliott is less certain that the government will win, than the impression he gave before.
There is also talk of allowing Brits to retain their EU citizen status on a voluntary basis.
www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/tuesday-give-brits-voluntary-dual-eu-citizenship/
Its highly unlikely but it is an interesting ide

OP posts:
HesterThrale · 09/10/2016 18:22

Hmmmm... So is he saying UK individuals could retain EU citizenship and all its benefits? (For a fee?)
I like the idea (out of desperation) but I can't see the EU agreeing to it without reciprocity for their citizens.

RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 18:34

No Mark Elliott not saying that. Paragraph fail. Its an idea being pushed by other people.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 09/10/2016 18:40

Oh course Farage would defend Trump...

Westministenders. Whilst Boris makes more daft promises, a50 hits the courts. Poo and Fan Time.
OP posts:
TheElementsSong · 09/10/2016 18:40

UK individuals could retain EU citizenship and all its benefits?

Even if it's unlikely, that cheers me up a bit and I would definitely pay - although a fee would be terribly unfair on those who value their EU citizenship as I do, but can't afford it.