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
IAmNotTheMessiah · 04/10/2016 11:42

Do you think Leadsom was that dreadful Leave poster who kept mentioning the word "mum" every other sentence? Grin

Peregrina · 04/10/2016 11:44

I thought that kids did want to be Doctors. The real problem comes with retaining them. I have a niece who has recently qualified - I expect it to be a matter of time before she emigrates.

Corcory · 04/10/2016 11:45

Cecil - Why would we be debating whether or no to invoke A50? Don't think we have a choice do we? The PM has said Brexit is Brexit after all!
As for the time scale. I would think most people are fairly happy with the one set, well apart from the hard Brexiters who want it invoked now. But that's not what the people who are advocating a debate are thinking of.

CeciledeVolanges · 04/10/2016 11:48

Because we are a Parliamentary democracy, and we can vote to jump off a cliff all we like but I think Parliament should still be taking the best interests of the population into account.

Peregrina · 04/10/2016 11:50

I like the way you say 'that's not what people are advocating debate are thinking of'. Have you asked? It's like TM deciding that people have voted to curb immigration. Was that on the ballot paper? How does she know people put that in preference to the non-existent £350 million a week for the NHS?

RedToothBrush · 04/10/2016 11:54

Corcory, it would provide assurances to people like foreign doctors living here. Which I think is right and proper.

It would provide some stability.

The markets and business have not liked the Tory party conference. At all.

Its scaring the living shit out of people having this cliff and lots of very authoritarian bullshit coming out this week.

They have managed to make the current Labour party look an attract prospect... (and that's fucking saying something).

OP posts:
Peregrina · 04/10/2016 12:01

The markets and business have not liked the Tory party conference. At all.
That is saying something. The Tories are usually regarded as a safe pair of hands as far as businesses are concerned.

Motheroffourdragons · 04/10/2016 12:09

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

twofingerstoGideon · 04/10/2016 12:11

There is probably another good reason why UK youth aren't choosing to train as doctors - the high cost of study. Five years at undergrad level followed by years of postgrad usually.

And then they can look forward to being despised by this government, who will insinuate that they're not delivering a seven day service. I'm surprised they're not queuing up.

Motheroffourdragons · 04/10/2016 12:14

This reply has been withdrawn

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

CeciledeVolanges · 04/10/2016 12:19

Corcory I would be interested to know what the people advocating a debate are thinking of?

SapphireStrange · 04/10/2016 12:21

Nothing much new to say (too dispirited at the moment) but wanted to join the thread. I enjoy Red's collation of and commentary on events very much. And the company overall, of course!

SapphireStrange · 04/10/2016 12:21

It's like TM deciding that people have voted to curb immigration. Was that on the ballot paper? How does she know people put that in preference to the non-existent £350 million a week for the NHS?

This is probably the number-one question I'd ask TM.

RedToothBrush · 04/10/2016 12:31

"Work with us, not against us to reduce net immigration"
Amber Rudd has just said in her speech.

WTF does that mean?

OP posts:
PattyPenguin · 04/10/2016 12:33

And who is it aimed at? Kippers?

drwitch · 04/10/2016 12:34

aren't we waiting for our home grown unicorns ?

CeciledeVolanges · 04/10/2016 12:40

I want to second Sapphire, this is a great discussion if not exactly pleasant to read in substance.
For my sins, I've read a couple of chapters of that CSJ report. I want to tear apart Sir William Cash's chapter on my own time and in my own space, but I note that among the suggestions for maintaining the City's importance post Brexit are removing the EU cap on bankers' bonuses, de-regulation to the greatest possible extent and reducing corporation tax.
As well as this we are proposing to disapply certain parts of the Human Rights Act and eventually repeal it and bring in a Bill of Rights probably offering inferior protection, all while the government gives itself powers to rewrite large swathes of the law in an unaccountable way.

RedToothBrush · 04/10/2016 12:41

Kippers.

She followed it up shortly after with a comment about Corbyn being pro-immigration.

They are going after the Kipper vote in full force.

OP posts:
SapphireStrange · 04/10/2016 12:47

Cecile, I'd be really interested in reading your take-down of the report if you feel you want to post it here at some point.

The City/passporting etc is one of my biggest concerns about Brexit. I like to heckle a fat cat banker as much as the next person, but you can't ignore the City's contribution to the economy; and, while I know it's not fashionable to believe in the trickle-down effect, there are undoubtedly people other than the top brass who would suffer from a diminishment of the City.

twofingerstoGideon · 04/10/2016 13:06

I would be interested to know what the people advocating a debate are thinking of?
Well maybe Parliament could start with having a debate about what Brexit mans Brexit means.

Peregrina · 04/10/2016 13:19

They could also press May on why she thinks Immigration is the be all and end all of leaving the EU. Given that non EU immigration was greater, despite obstacles put in the way of the rest of the world, she might like to explain why she thinks trashing the economy is a good trade off for cutting back EU immigrants, the vast majority of whom make a contribution to the economy.

Nightofthetentacle · 04/10/2016 13:21

Yup - and the delightful prospect of less regulation did encourage some City folk I know to vote leave. I've never known less regulation to be beneficial to the man on the street...

I think there are 2ish million people employed by Financial Services in the UK - a lot of that is obviously domestically focused, and much of it not within the square mile, but it's a huge, huge number of people. Even the threat of loss of passporting is having an effect - I know some companies that have already sent off their applications for authorisation in EU countries. Why wait to find out if it'll be retained?

Nightofthetentacle · 04/10/2016 13:26

*EU countries which are not the UK, obviously.

CeciledeVolanges · 04/10/2016 13:44

I want to second Sapphire, this is a great discussion if not exactly pleasant to read in substance.
For my sins, I've read a couple of chapters of that CSJ report. I want to tear apart Sir William Cash's chapter on my own time and in my own space, but I note that among the suggestions for maintaining the City's importance post Brexit are removing the EU cap on bankers' bonuses, de-regulation to the greatest possible extent and reducing corporation tax.
As well as this we are proposing to disapply certain parts of the Human Rights Act and eventually repeal it and bring in a Bill of Rights probably offering inferior protection, all while the government gives itself powers to rewrite large swathes of the law in an unaccountable way.

CousinCharlotte · 04/10/2016 13:46

Other EU Countries must be cock-a-hoop with prospect of the Uk losing passporting and clearing houses. Our loss is their gain.