Westministenders. Boris and co learn the basics - and limits - of British sovereignty and democracy.

[RedToothBrush]

There is a plan.

It is not a very good one, but May says she has a plan.

As May declared a revolution and set out her vision for a Britain ‘open’ for free trade and hard working people she managed to further drive in the wedge of division into a society which needed measured and sensitive handling.

Her speech was met, with much derision and horror both here and abroad. Even UKIP voices say the Conservatives went too far.

Brexit began to take shape. It appeared hard and fast. Without the consent of parliament. It was to be run by the executive alone. As the ex-Polish Foreign Minister points out, the shape of it decided because it was viewed as the ‘easiest’ option. Not the one in the best interests of the country. Leaving the EU has become indistinguishable to the Single Market. We are told by Mr Davis that there is no down side to this.

Then something else began to happen and the plan is beginning to not look so clever…

The pound plunged.

Mr Hammond, who has seemed to have resisted the urge to take the hallucinatory drugs being handed out in vast quantities around the Cabinet Table, came out saying that we must consider the economic reality of Brexit.

It was followed by a leaked paper that put the cost of Hard Brexit at between £38bn and £66bn a year. Our EU membership cost £8bn last year. Where are those NHS buses now?

The government response? Oh that was George. He just made it up for ‘Project Fear’. Or something to that effect.

The government on the one hand were saying how great Brexit will be, yet were not prepared to make the case in parliament. The Times editorial came out as categorically for the Single Market. Even the Sun on Sunday editorial spoke up for the Single Market (though was still in the land of cake wanting immigration control too).

David Davis took to the Commons to answer questions and was met with a chorus of rising alarm. Whilst he confirmed that the majority of EU citizens here do have their right to remain here as being their legal entitlement, it does not guarantee their rights under this. He echoed the language of the citizen of nowhere in May’s speech and, perhaps can be seen to make, the stark message that you should consider taking on British Citizenship.

Parliament has started to wake up to what is at stake. It is not just whether we stay in the EU or not, but Brexit presents a challenge to democratic processes and threatens to bypass the checks and balances to power that parliament is supposed to provide. It is a threat to our international reputation as a champion of liberal values and democratic stature. It is a threat to our economic security. It is a threat to our diplomatic relations, with the reckless comments and language coming from some. .

The stirrings of rebellion and a credible opposition come from a variety of quarters. From both leavers and remainers alike. From every party including the governments. Initially the government refused to give, so Labour announced an opposition debate on transparency of Brexit and it all started to fall apart. Faced with a vote they could not get enough support to win they made an apparent U-Turn and agreed to parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s position ahead of a50 within certain limits.

Keir Starmer, making the point that Human Rights Lawyers are not to be messed with, has written 170 questions, one for every day before the end of March when a50 is due to be triggered, for Davis to respond to.

However, the agreement to this debate on negotiations is none binding and there is no date for it as yet. The government must not be allowed to pay lip service to rebels. They must be held to this reversal.

Today’s opposition debate seems to suggest that the government definition of scrutiny is wheeling out David Davies and get him to waffle a lot and not say anything. This has gone down like a lead balloon. The government can not maintain this. Something will give. He has still refused to release a green or white paper which many expected.

May’s choice will be blunt. She either keeps pretending Santa is real and can deliver the pony whilst losing the house in the process or she owns up to the looming cold hard truth of reality.

May might be fully committed to taking us off the cliff top no matter what but she’s going to have to fight to get there.

In the best interests of the country the pressure must be kept up. There must be resistance to the ‘Little England’ mentality and orders by the Mail and the Express to silence those unpatriotic ‘agents of Brussels’ who are raising legitimate concerns that need to be considered as part of the process.

Its either this or we will have to rely on the proposed new Royal Yacht to send Kate off round the world begging for trade deals “to once again project the prestige of this nation across the globe” as Mr Gove says. Prestige we still had before the referendum was announced.

Peregrina, would it be very wrong to find that funny?

Of course, true democracy would involve no pesky rules or laws at all and instead everyone could have a voting button installed in their home to decide, by a majority vote, what should be done in case of a dispute.

I was a remain voter but confess I hadn't considered the impact of leaving on Ireland.

Thinking about it, it would not be in the Remain side's interest to refer to the ECJ for a decision on the reversibility of article 50 if there is to be a presumption in the English Courts that it is not reversible in any event. It would not be in the Government's interests to refer the question to the ECJ as it is likely to take a long time to get a decision or at the very least further months' delay. Almost better for them to go for the parliamentary vote now, than to 'win' the legal case but end up invoking article 50 so late that Brexit will occur just pre or post the next UK general election.

No Stripey , because triggering article 50 doesn't affect domestic legislation at all. Parliament doesn't have to do anything. It is just that EU law stops applying at the end of two years and we fall off a cliff. It is like chopping off the roots of a tree growing through the middle of the house. The people in the house have to do something even though hurting the tree didn't touch the house.

Is that right CeciledeVolanges? If we leave the EU but, don't repeal the European Communities Act, our parliament and courts will be still be bound to recognise the supremacy of EU law. Do you think that would work in practice?

If that is not workable, then the government, by invoking article 50 (if irreversible) is forcing parliament to do something that may properly and constitutionally only be done by parliament.

Cecile - EU law doesn't just stop applying - that requires repeal of the European Communities Act, which may only be done by parliament.

stripe so then, anything could happen between triggering art. 50 and the end of the two year period, regarding how European legislation could be changed to adapt to the Brexit process but also the result of German and French GEs, etc. ?

Almost better for them to go for the parliamentary vote now, than to 'win' the legal case but end up invoking article 50 so late that Brexit will occur just pre or post the next UK general election.

It was always better for the government to trigger later than March. The reason May has said March is to shut up the Right and because of pressure from the EU who want this resolved before talks about the next EU budget commence next Summer. (See below about how the UK is likely to end up in those now anyway from the sound of it)

The irony of the a50 people's challenge now, is its almost increasingly irrelevant in the sense that it is becoming politically impossible for May to maintain that the executive retain the power to trigger it. Her own party will pretty much revolt if she doesn't let it go for a vote in the HoC.

On top of this the power of the prerogative is now going to be tested. This also could limit her power as the scope of the prerogative is likely to be clarified, ruling out its use for other matters.

The NI case is slightly different, but this will also help to define just how much power the NI executive has in terms of self determination and how much this was protected in GFA.

Triggering later than March runs into the French and German Presidential Elections too, which will have a baring on how negotiations progress...

www.ft.com/content/a8ec5e90-938c-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582
UK looks at paying billions into EU budget after Brexit
Plan would let finance sector keep single-market access

Several senior ministers have told the Financial Times that the cabinet is considering how Britain could carry on paying billions of pounds into the EU budget. “We would have to be careful how we explained it,” said one minister. “But Theresa has been very careful not to rule it out.” Another senior Tory said: “With Theresa, you have to listen carefully to the silences.”

and
British ministers are considering making further EU budget contributions during any transitional period between Brexit, expected in 2019, and the conclusion of any European free-trade deal, which could take many more years to agree. The payments could extend even beyond that period.

Those EU budget meetings that start in summer 2017 which the EU didn't want us to be part of? Sounds like the talk from the UK that we want to be.

www.ft.com/content/c397f174-9205-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78?pt=BureoF1GVB2012-07-27.html?vp1
UK car industry fears effects of Brexit tariffs on supply chain
Suppliers say uncertainty over trade agreements may force them to relocate overseas

Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan, the UK’s two largest carmakers, hold only two hours’ of stock of some items at their sites in order to minimise inventories and save on costs.

But this leaves them vulnerable to stoppages further down the supply chain.

Once, when key parts for Nissan’s Sunderland plant were stuck on a ship with little prospect of arriving in time, plant managers contacted the local RAF base and offered to pay for fuel for flights if they went to collect the parts as part of an impromptu training mission, according to one manager at the site.

The example highlights how delicate the current system is, especially if the parts that are coming have to clear customs. “A few hours of delay at a border would probably stop the production line,” says Richard Gane, a supply chain expert at consultancy Vendigital.

Sorry, jaws5, I don't understand.

About the reversibility of Art. 50, for example? I'm not a legal person, so I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying

Red - yes, you might be right. A massive delay in the ability to trigger article 50 despite May's best efforts, due to the activities of those awful Remainers, could be ideal for her.

I also agree that the most significant development in all this is the willingness of Conservative MPs to stand up to the Government and to hold it to account.

Spot on as usual.

Jaws5 - I think we don't know for sure whether article 50 is reversible or not yet. For what it's worth, many people (including our own Law Society) believe it to be reversible and politically you will have seen that Tusk has indicated that is likely to be the case.

However, in the absence of knowing for sure, it appears that the English Court will presume that it is not reversible (as this is the safest assumption in terms of consequences I would have thought), but just for the purposes of the hearing on the question on whether article 50 may be triggered by the government alone or whether parliament's consent is needed.

Let's wait and see whether this has any real world consequence or whether it is all hot air. Red's observations that this hearing may serve to clip the government's wings more widely are perhaps even more relevant.

Haven't RTFT (TL;DR) but and interesting quote from:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-37648525

As David Davis once observed: "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

The whole article is a big too much to post, but it's BBC, so safe to click .... it's worth a read. Oh, here's another gem:

But the trouble with continually dodging and ducking parliamentary votes is the smell.
For years, those who wanted the UK to leave the European Union trumpeted the inviolable glory of parliamentary sovereignty.
They fulminated against politicians going off to Brussels and doing secret deals behind closed doors, politicians who wouldn't even ask MPs to vote on the agreements they made out of sight and away from scrutiny.
Now, for very understandable reasons, they want to go off to Brussels and do a secret deal behind closed doors and then not allow Parliament to have a say on the result.
It may be good politics, but only the signed-up cheerleaders will politely ignore the whiff of hypocrisy.

Thank you. Really fascinating stuff!

Adam Curtis just launched a new documentary on post truth.. riveting.

Where has it been released? Is that the one called Hyper something?

Hypernormaisaton.

Available now on Iplayer.

Really interesting.

Thanks! Is it 3 hours long and hypnotising? 😃

I'm not 100% on this, so if other people can clarify it might be helpful.

My understanding is that

If a50 is reversible it means:

1. If at the end of two years we don't like the deal we are offered, we could stay in the EU. The EU could run a very hard line in order to force us to stay.
2. A GE after a50 is triggered could mean that a parties position on Europe could become very central. Paddy Ashdown has been setting up a progressive alliance which plans to tell people which is the best pro-Europe candidate to vote for if this situation arises, to help people vote tactically.
3. It perhaps offers an incentive to rebels to state their case and to try and derail Brexit.
4. It means there is greater pressure for the government to put any deal to the people in the form of some kind of vote.
5. It provides a bit of a safety net to the uncertainty
6. It gives more opportunity for rights to be protected as the fail safe is a reversal if the case for those rights can be made at a later date. (eg further legal challenges if necessary)
7. It is easier to block the 'Great' Repeal Act and get the government to make greater concessions.
8. We have 2 and a half years to make the case for what we want.
9. Greater pressure for parliamentary scrutiny throughout.

If a50 is none reversible it means:

1. when a50 is triggered, that's it - we are out.
2. It encourages the government to go for a hard brexit rather than a soft one, as there is no escape shoot, so planning for a hard brexit makes more sense even if we want concessions because this is in effect less risky.
3. politically this is better for May as it means she is less likely to have rebellions as, its an all or nothing situation and her MPs will be compelled to fall into line in the national interest.
4. there is more pressure to accept a crap detail rather than no deal.
5. May effectively will have more power.
6. There is potentially more uncertainty as there is more at stake, if we are unable to reach a deal, and the risk of a chaotic exit is greatly increased.
7. Any rights you have will be all in the hands of May with little opportunity to challenge her as the deal is already done so to speak. Legal challenges after the fact are more likely to be along the lines of compensation rather than trying to protect them.
8. It is much harder for parliament to block the 'Great' Repeal Act - which due to Henry VIII clauses could give the executive to change laws at will without parliamentary approval.
9. We have just six months to kick May's backside to get what we want.

Like I say, I'm not 100% sure on all of those, but it might at least start to give an idea of how much of a difference it makes.

If you want Brexit, you want a50 to be none reversible (which is why Maugham says this is politically good for the government) but if you are the claimant, this is good because if triggering a50 is irreversible then the courts are more likely to act to stop the government making such a big decision without parliamentary involvement due to how rights are tied up with the decision.

I think.

As I say, I'm not 100% sure on this. I'm sure someone qualified will write an article on the matter soon enough. You get the rough idea though.

Adam Curtis is that the one who did 'Black Lake' or something or other about the middle east and war and oil? (I forget the name) It was truly exceptional. I've seen few documentaries of that quality.

If it is, I will definitely try and watch that one.

Stripey the EU law that doesn't require parliamentary implementation - Regulations and the Treaties - actually does stop applying the day we leave. Repeal of the European Communities Act is only effective at the domestic level. We have a dualist, not a monist system. Similarly, repeal of the European Communities Act and leaving the EU will not affect those Acts of Parliament which were put in place to bring EU law obligations into domestic law.

It is red, Bitter Lake was amazing, but the Power of Nightmares is possibly his best.

And apologies for being so curt today, I'm tired from weekend working. Red is 100% more informed about politics. In terms of pure law the blog post she posted was correct. Whether Article 50 is reversible isn't a U.K. Law question and the reason both sides chose to proceed on an assumption was that in the end if it comes to a dispute the CJEU will have the final interpretation, because article 50 is a provision of the Treaty on European Union and therefore EU law.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/16/philip-hammond-in-cabinet-row-over-accusations-he-is-trying-to-u/

Another source said: “He is arguing from a very Treasury point of view. He is arguing like an accountant seeing the risk of everything rather than the opportunity.”

HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO THAT YOU FOOLS!

Hammond, if you've read up on him, is not a man who is adverse to risk. He has taken numerous risky business ventures on. Some have succeeded and some have failed.

This experience is something virtually all the cabinet (if not all) do not have. His judgment is based on real life rather than ideological belief.

bangs head on the wall

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/16/euro-house-of-cards-to-collapse-warns-ecb-prophet/
Euro close to collapse warns economist.
This is a central argument for a lot of Brexiteers. I think there is truth in it, but I think we will be exposed to it regardless of whether we are in the EU or not. If this did indeed happen, it is of course, another game changer...

And Red most of that sounds correct, apart from the bit about the claimant wanting Article 50 to be irreversible. I'm writing an article which is tangentially related and the first round of comments said "why would the court depart from the letter of the law"? They are supposed to apply the law without consideration of politics :( unfortunately