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
Snuggleblanket · 11/10/2016 11:20

Merry, That's an impossible ask since the Leave Campaign was not a Government construct. I'm trying to ascertain if the appetite is to leave...or remain.

Motheroffourdragons · 11/10/2016 11:23

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 11:23

So, doinit.....its in the interests of the country as a whole...to subvert the results of a majority vote 'to leave the eu'?

Leaving the EU subverts the democratic majority in Scotland, NI and Gibraltar.

Because the lesson of Britain is that we are a country built on the bonds of family, community, citizenship.

Is threatening that and Westministers relationships in the interests of the country as a whole. Or just Englands?

If you want to get into a democratic pissing contest, you have three problems right there.

The idea that is 'subverting democracy' to review our options that we now have, and DID NOT VOTE TO APPROVE is fucking laughable. It doesn't

You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ 'democracy' means.

OP posts:
merrymouse · 11/10/2016 11:50

Merry, That's an impossible ask since the Leave Campaign was not a Government construct. I'm trying to ascertain if the appetite is to leave...or remain.

Which tells you all you need to know about why the referendum was a stupid idea - but then the point was for DC to win and get rid of UKIP, not to leave us in a ridiculous mess.

I mean Michael Foot and Nigel Lawson have both campaigned to leave the EU at various times - yes, 'Brexit means Brexit means wtf do we do next?' - .

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 11:56

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
Every time a Brexiteer opens his or her mouth we all get poorer.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831697/Farage-blew-claims-Vote-Leave-mastermind.html
Dominic Cummings thinks the ref would have been 60% Leave to 40% Remain but for Farage.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chuka-umunna-liberal-elite_uk_57fc8c65e4b04e1174a55237?
Why calling Remain voters Liberal Elites is divisive.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/hard-brexit-chaotic-leaving-eu-labour-tories-economic?CMP=twt_gu
Why calling hard brexit is wrong. This is chaotic brexit

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/take-back-control-border-force-lax-security?CMP=share_btn_tw
Take back control of our borders. Great idea - shame our border control are not up to the job. Just a minor practical problem.

www.ft.com/content/94667d58-8b5c-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731
Brexit may push VTB’s Europe hub out of London
Russia’s VTB Bank has become the first big lender to publicly say it will move its investment banking unit out of the UK because of the disruption expected to be caused by the country’s decision to leave the EU.

At least it will get first dibs on premises. They is going to be some competition soon.

www.scottishlegal.com/2016/10/10/editorial-playing-with-fire/
On the foreign workers stuff
An open letter published in today’s Scotsman calling on the Government to end this divisive rhetoric has attracted the support of 300 academics, writers and lawyers including Helena Kennedy QC and Ian Hamilton QC. Business organisations are equally appalled and we identify with their concerns.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 12:06

Lets go back to that Political Compass diagram of how people voted

www.politicalcompass.org/uk_eu_referendum2016

It splits both leave and remain into three groups, as follows:
Remain voters were themselves divided between:
A) Those enthusiastically embracing the EU's prevailing economics (neoliberal/free trade) but unhappy with the Social Charter and Chapter — especially on migration. This is a position held by many Conservatives.

B) Those happy with both the economic and social provisions, which includes many people on the centre/right of the Labour Party, almost all Lib Dems and some wet Tories

C) Those enthused by at least most of the EU's social provisions, but rejecting corporate values and neoliberal economics (left-of-centre social liberals eg Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn).

Brexit voters were similarly divided between:
D) Those rejecting the EU's prevailing economics but accepting, at least to some extent, the social dimension (many Laboure supporters)

E) Those rejecting both (quintessentially UKIP)

F) Those comfortable with many of the EU's economic provisions, if only they could easily exit the Social Chapter (Conservative)

May is in effect trying to do E. Those suggests we could have a bit of F. (Over the EU's dead body).

This means that A, B, C and D (and yes F) are all stuffed. This is the majority of people.

A, B and F are the economic camp
B, C and D are the social camp
E are the 'awkward squad' who are getting it all.

How you can work out you have a mandate from the referendum result saying X is what people voted for when that's how reasoning is split, I'm not entirely sure.

OP posts:
CeciledeVolanges · 11/10/2016 12:10

Detailed and helpful advice from a Brexiteer.

Westministenders. Whilst Boris makes more daft promises, a50 hits the courts. Poo and Fan Time.
CeciledeVolanges · 11/10/2016 12:12

I also never saw the words "immediately" or "no matter what" appear on the ballot paper anywhere.

PattyPenguin · 11/10/2016 12:24

Perhaps Ms Moon could ask Mr Bridgen for exact details of written, binding undertakings by the Government that her GP constituent's patients can stay in the UK no matter what form Brexit takes.

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 12:43

Ms Moon did in response.

Mrs Moon
It is absolutely imperative that we have some clarity. A glib individual on the Government Benches claims I should reassure them. I have done that, but they need reassurance from the Government, because I do not have such a power. May we at least have clarification that those who have lived in this country for over five years will have an automatic right to remain? They need it, and it is only right that citizens should have such clarity.

She then got this response.

Mr David Davis
I can give such people absolute clarity: that is the law. Being in Britain for more than five years means that they have indefinite leave to remain. Being in Britain for more than six years gives them the right to citizenship.

Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
It is perfectly natural for us to want as much detail as possible, but it is more important that the outcome is the success that we need. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that we should not tempt him to give details now, but that we should keep as much secret as we can, while our opponents are talking about tariffs and punishments? Should he not do everything he can to play with his cards as close as possible to his chest?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend is right, and I will do everything I can to resist temptation.

Its almost like a give with one hand and take with the other. Don't give away the detail of what deal they will get with a right to remain. Just tell them they have to become citizens is effectively the deal.

And yes the contempt with which Andrew Bridgen replied is callous.

Full debate can be read here:
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-10/debates/6CE5F6BB-3AA4-4332-BF7A-577DB35BDB77/NextStepsInLeavingTheEuropeanUnion
See if you can see where Davies says anything worthwhile.

Clegg's comment is wonderful.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
I have always been a great admirer of the Secretary of State for his staunch defence of civil liberties and his staunch defence of the prerogatives of this House. I was a great admirer when he brought forward the Parliamentary Control of the Executive Bill in 1999 and stirringly told us that

“Executive decisions by the Government should be subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 352, c. 931.]

Can he tell us on the basis of what constitutional principle he believes the Prime Minister can now arrogate to herself the exclusive right to interpret what Brexit means and impose it upon the country, rather than protect the rightful role of scrutiny and approval of this House?

Davis replied saying this was 'micromanagement'.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
This is the first time I have ever heard parliamentary sovereignty referred to as micromanagement.

Genius. He was squirming.

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 11/10/2016 12:46

Interesting to see an MP calling the government keeping parliament out of the decision making process a tyranny. A lack of respect for democracy as well. A Conservative MP, at that.

How do the Gov't claim any particular version of Brexit is a mandate? No vote was taken on that. As one person vociferously claims it was one scenario they voted for, another can claim a different scenario was behind their vote.

Cailleach1 · 11/10/2016 12:52

As someone said on this site, there is a reason these guys were lingering on the back benches for years. It wasn't because of their talent and capability.

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 12:54

Folks, at this time of economic crisis, the government are doing all they can.

This is why they are debating the building of a new Royal Yacht. 100 Conservative MPs support this.

Bet you are all chuffed to bits by their priorities.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 12:55

Oh yes, Johnson is in the HoC today, speaking about Syria. Its his first proper gig in the HoC.

OP posts:
Snuggleblanket · 11/10/2016 13:10

(MotherConfused) heard it all now! There was a binary choice and everyone who voted for the wrong option didn't all vote to LEAVE THE EU, but the lesser in number homogenous mass who voted for the other option were the majority because they all conferred and wanted ecactly the same thing for ever and ever amen so we should all just go back as we were? Unbelievable.

SapphireStrange · 11/10/2016 13:15

Snuggle, it's more accurate to say that people who voted to stay didn't need to define their wishes because a vote to stay would have meant we simply carried on as before.

A Leave vote on a simple/simplistic binary choice very obviously raises the question of –what exactly do we want from leaving? And it's abundantly clear that different Leave voters wanted different things. Those involved in the official and unofficial campaigns wanted different things –Farage harped on immigration while others wanted a Norway-type deal, to pick just two.

Also, purely anecdotally but in the hope of illustrating my point somewhat, of two Leave voters I know, one voted Leave because of 'the immigrants' and one for 'sovereignty'.

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 13:16

www.ft.com/content/ec35e07a-5a6a-3b93-bb06-2946058d1122
Is the UK heading for ‘hard’ Brexit just because it’s easiest?
David Allen Green

Why is the government taking this “hard” Brexit route? The reason cannot be the referendum alone: the less than 52 per cent who voted to leave the EU may be a mandate for Brexit but it is not a mandate for a Brexit being any harder than necessary, especially as the Conservative parliamentary majority was elected on an explicit manifesto promise of “safeguarding” the country in the single market.

One plausible reason is suggested by former Polish finance minister Jacek Rostowski in an important and insightful article:

“The EU will have the upper hand in negotiations for two simple reasons. First, the UK has more to lose economically. While other EU countries’ total exports to the UK are double what the UK exports to the rest of the bloc, its exports to the EU amount to three times more as a share of its GDP. Likewise, the UK has a services surplus, which matters far less to the rest of the EU than it does to Britain.

“Second, just like the EU’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, any negotiated arrangement between the EU and the UK will have to be unanimously accepted by all EU member states. Thus, the negotiation will not really be between the UK and the EU, but rather among EU members. The UK, without a presence at those talks, will simply have to accept or reject whatever the EU offers. This would be true even if the UK pursued a prepackaged arrangement such as membership in the European Economic Area or the EU Customs Union; it will be all the more true if the UK seeks a “bespoke” deal, as May has indicated she will.

“If British voters recognized their country’s weak negotiating position, the Brexiteers, who won the referendum on their promise to “take back control,” would face a political disaster. Walking away from substantive negotiations is the simplest way to avoid such an embarrassing unmasking.

“Thus, politically, a hard Brexit is actually the soft option for the government.”

As Blaise Pascal might have put it, the UK government may be making this Brexit hard just because there is neither time nor inclination enough to make it soft.

And there you have it. In the best interests of politics and not the country as a whole.

Wool. Eyes.
Down. River. Sold.

Why do we need parliamentary scrutiny again?

Nutshell. There.

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 11/10/2016 13:26

Well, people voted to leave or remain in the EU. What that looks like is what is debatable. Switzerland and Norway aren't in the EU, but are Schengen and pay up. Maybe that is what the people who voted to leave the EU wanted? I could as easily speculate it is because it fulfils the criteria of leaving the EU.

So if the government negotiated a Schengen situation, with same benefits and required payments as Norway and Switzerland, outside the EU, they could as easily claim this was the mandate as much as any other scenario. They would just as truthfully claim they were carrying out the democratic will of the people to leave the EU. I didn't see Schengen or payment choices on the ballot paper. Did some people get differently worded ballots?

Snuggleblanket · 11/10/2016 13:37

Mine said leave or remain. It didn't specify if that meant remain in the EU as it is today or remain if the eu changes in essence either. So, it cannot be claimed that 48% all knew exactly what each other voted for apart from one word - 'remain'.

SapphireStrange · 11/10/2016 13:41

Snuggle, remaining may have meant that the UK would have looked at ways to reform the EU (I voted remain but acknowledge that reform is/was needed). But that doesn't require the same amount of work as voting leave and then being faced, as the government now is, with a slew of issues to resolve and no one clear line on what they/we actually want, does it?

Cailleach1 · 11/10/2016 14:04

The vote could also have meant to leave the EU and become just like Norway with Schengen. Do Norway comply with the 4 freedoms and pay a bundle for the privilege? They are not in the EU and 'pay but have no say'. But crucially, they are not a member of the EU. Same as what the UK voted for.

It would just as validly fit the mandate of the 'leave the EU' majority. There was no question other than simply leaving or remaining a member of the EU on the ballot.

RedToothBrush · 11/10/2016 14:09

£38 - 66bn? Na. George made it up.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/downing-street-brexit-warning-66bn-george-osborne_uk_57fcdbaee4b01fa2b9054e34?wjzso7fhclzt7ta9k9

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 11/10/2016 14:10

Same could be said for 'Leave', Snuggle. It is a strawman.

GreenandWhite · 11/10/2016 14:11

Red reading your post from Tue 11-Oct-16 13:16:10 I am stunned into silence. What an utter mess we are in. I am feel in very sad.

In terms of citizenship, what are the chances that government will change the rule so of citizenship in 2017 to not allow dual citizenship for those acquiring the British citizenship? Sad Sad

Cailleach1 · 11/10/2016 14:17

Do you mean they wouldn't recognise dual citizenship with any other country. How would that work in Northern Ireland?

Swipe left for the next trending thread