Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
SapphireStrange · 12/10/2016 15:35

Green, I watched a bit and I agree with your assessment of Theresa May as a thug and an opportunist.

And yes, she looked scared and her voice was wobbly.

I'm LOVING the work of Clarke, Miliband, Clegg et al.

GloriaGaynor · 12/10/2016 15:37

So then, why doesn't the German Government need the agreement of the EU?

Quite. Anyone who does know info gratefully received.

RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 15:37

I can not hear what Redwood says. It all sounds like one long dreary tone.

Apologies.

Hilary Benn isn't much better to be fair.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 15:44

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Hilary Benn: Thatcher great Single Mkt backer. Redwood intervenes "as her adviser I advised her against it". Benn "i dont take your advice"

Hahaha!

Ben Cobley ‏@bencobley
Labour siding with Margaret Thatcher against her right-wing advisers on free markets: stuff is getting stranger and stranger.

The world has gone mad

OP posts:
Unicornsarelovely · 12/10/2016 15:45

Apparently the Germany exclusion is down to the fact that the freedoms are freedom of movement of workers in Article 46 of the TFEU.

The German argument is that the migrants who will no longer receive benefits are not looking for work and hence the equality provision does not apply. The aim is that there is no entitlement to benefits without seeking work.

This should not impact on the German equivalent of tax credits which are paid to households in work.

RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 15:52

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Nicky Morgan says wants to back the Labour motion too, saying Miliband right to say will affect UK for decades...

Says Cabinet were not informed about the announcement of the date of a50 being triggered before the ConKip conference. Only discussed amongst a very small number of people. (Direct criticism of May in that).

Otherwise she doesn't seem to have said anything that has not already been said.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 15:59

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt 12s
12 seconds ago

Morgan says Brexiters accuse critics of wanting to reverse the result. "I resent it from the briefers & spinners at centre of this govt.

Ian Dunt ‏@IanDunt
I don't even know what's going on anymore Nicky Morgan is making a very fine, impassioned, morally clear-sighted speech. Outstanding.

Emma Reynolds (LAB), nailing the point that political interest is being put ahead of the national interest - why make the announcement of a50 timing at the Tory Conference.

May said there is no such thing as a difference between soft and hard brexit. This is because she knows there is division in her party. If there is no difference why have the pound and business reacted the way they have in the last week?

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 16:13

steve fixsheff ‏@fixsheff
What a shame the standard of debate pre-referendum wasn't up to the standard of Dominic Grieve, Ed Miliband, Ken Clarke, Kier Starmer today.

This is the biggest travesty of them all.

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Anna Soubry suggests Brexit is "unraveling" and says parliament should forget at its peril that vast majority of young people voted to stay

OP posts:
GloriaGaynor · 12/10/2016 16:15

Apparently the Germany exclusion is down to the fact that the freedoms are freedom of movement of workers in Article 46 of the TFEU

So could we have done this ourselves without the EU concession? Assuming that the EU don't object to the German proposals.

merrymouse · 12/10/2016 16:24

May said there is no such thing as a difference between soft and hard brexit.

There is Brexit that is more or less open to the rest of the world, and people voted for Brexit (and remain) for both reasons.

RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 16:27

Rees-Mogg just says that he thinks that there will be a vote on a50.

His position is that he thinks that a50 falls within the remit of the prerog, so that's an interesting comment.

Suggests that the PM is not as free to just use it, as she thinks even if legally she can.

In a sense if this is the position, a lot (but not all) of reasoning the a50 litigation is nullified.

Also raises the question, why didn't the government just go for that rather than expose themselves to defeat over the matter in the courts, which also risks limiting the remit of the royal prerog.

It now starts to seem like an error of judgment to even consider using the royal prerog for a50...

OP posts:
OP posts:
Unicornsarelovely · 12/10/2016 16:46

I think we certainly could have done more. The big problem we have is the in-work benefits including HB which add up to a pretty significant amount.

Nightofthetentacle · 12/10/2016 16:54

Extraordinary isn't it HPFA - it is like a party within a party.

SwedishEdith · 12/10/2016 21:20

I liked this Tweet

Rhiannon L CosslettVerified account
‏@rhiannonlucyc
Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.

Who knows, we may wish we were in the Euro after all.

DoinItFine · 12/10/2016 21:49

I have a real problem with the EU's intransigence over the way the UK's welfare state was set up.

It was clearly unjustifiable for our universal benefits to be paid to anyone who arrived in the country from an EU country, the day they arrived.

UK benefits have always been based on notional contributions but distributed universally.

That was our tradition and our system before the EU and it should have been respected.

It's a fine tradition and it was clearly an abuse of the spirit of the system for people to arrive over from Bulgaria and immediately start remitting child benefit payments for children that had never even been to the UK.

There was a real sense of "your system is wrong, because it is not like the way we do things in France and Germany, so instead of recognising its difference, we are going to hammer your welfare state in the pursuit of our rules".

It was a stupid, culturally insensitive, unfair, and short sighted move.

I was no supporter of Brexit, but the way the EU dealt with that issue over recent years was one of the few decent arguments for telling them to go fuck themselves.

smallfox2002 · 12/10/2016 22:54

Benefits are paid to people in other EU countries from when they arrive too. Nothing we do here is not reciprocated.

That's the point.

smallfox2002 · 12/10/2016 22:57

Oh and only for a limited period of time, everywhere in the EU.

However if you look at freedom of movement of capital, UK companies make far, far more from the EU than we pay out in benefits or anything for EU citizens, in fact we profit much more than almost any other country.

But no one ever talks about the fact that if we leave the EU, those profits will be taxed in the EU before they come back to the UK and be not available to the UK exchequer.

Mistigri · 13/10/2016 06:30

DoinItFine the rules work the same for all EU countries.

A lot of rubbish is written in the UK about "contributory" benefits in countries like France. But much of it is based on very little knowledge of how the system works. For eg, here in France we do have contributory unemployment insurance that you can only claim if you have been in work a minimum period. But there are non-contributory benefits too and many British families living in France rely on these.

DoinItFine · 13/10/2016 07:26

My issue is with the rules that "work the same in all EU countries".

I think it is incredibly arrogant to tell us how we must set up our welfare state rather than recognise the ways our welfare system makes those rules absurd and allow reasonable adjustment of the rules.

The EU is far from perfect and there can be, and has been in this case, a lot of unreasonable rigidity. And a tendency to punish the British for their Euroscepticism by, for example, making them beg on bended knee for opt outs granted easily to Germany.

I am far from aline in thinking that intransigence on this point was counter productive and partly to blame for the awful Brexit mess that is unfolding.

We were far better off in the EU than out of it. But the EU is massive flawed, and deeply undemocratic and wedded to pointless rules at the expense of pragmatism.

There was no good reason why the rules shouldn't have been amended to allow the UK (which was far more open to the supposedly essential free movement rules than any other EU state other than Ireland and Sweden) to deny in work benefits to recent arrivals.

Demanding that we rework our entire welfare system to suit EU rules was unfair and stupid.

prettybird · 13/10/2016 08:31

I must have made a big mistake then when after 6 months I signed off from my Contribution based JSA as the amount of our savings meant that I would be having to go along fortnightly, demonstrate all that I had been doing to look for work - for no money - as I wouldn't have been eligible for income-related JSA ConfusedHmm

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread