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.

A good riposte from Nicola Sturgeon

asked if she's "undermining" government's EU position. Answer; "You can't undermine something that doesn't exist."

The more I hear about Nicola Sturgeon, the more my esteem of her goes up.

For those of us who can read other languages (so almost axiomatically not hardcore Leave voters) the fascinating thing about the non-Anglophone news space, is how little of it mentions Brexit - let alone shows any concern whatsoever.

I'm not sure who said it, but there's a lovely epithet which goes something like : You wouldn't worry what other people think about you if you knew how seldom they thought if you at all

Just for example, of 3 "World" stories on www.msn.com/fr-fr/actualite/monde not one mentions Brexit. The only UK-related story is about hightened security on the Tube.

Which seems to be repeated in Italy

Whatever Theresa May has to say, it seems no one is rushing to hear.

As has been pointed out, it's the Tory members who will ultimately decide who takes the job – I doubt they want her out.

Not yet, not until they perceive her to be a liability, and then the knives will come out.

Not surprised by Nicola's comment. They voted to turn off the auto pilot unaware that noone knows how to fly.

I would be asking myself the question of why it isn't being discussed in the European news/media!?!

I would imagine it is not being discussed in European media because it's not very newsworthy. Nothing substantive has happened yet, and the Euro hasn't fallen massively the way the pound has.

The impact for the rest of the EU, even when we invoke article 50, is not going to be as great as it is for the UK. We stand to lose multiple foreign markets which could be financially catastrophic for us in the short term; other European states stand to lose just one which, although relatively large, will not make or break other EU states' (e.g. French, German, Spanish etc) economies, as they can simply continue selling to each other and elsewhere under the terms of trading agreements already negotiated.

I would be asking myself the question of why it isn't being discussed in the European news/media!?!

Because - until A50 - it's a matter of supreme indifference. However, the lack of discussion should rattle May & Co., since it suggests that when they do finally get their shit together, there will have to be a pause for the EU27 to digest it - whatever it is. That hardly suggests a swift - or smooth - Brexit.

Thing is we can't force the EU to do anything.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the CETA which Brexiteers pointed to as being exactly what the UK could get, stands a good chance of being scuppered by the vagaries of the EU that the Brexiteers were complaining about ?

Obviously, if the EU can't sign up to CETA, it won't be offered to the UK.

It's not being discussed because well ,we are 'out' bar the shouting.

6Music news just had a clip of Arlene Foster, whose message after the meeting was a bit more positive/diplomatic than Sturgeon's. Interesting that they carried her and not Sturgeon with her 'You can't undermine something that doesn't exist' comment...

Lurking, so many ironies, too many to mention, particularly on the issue of sovereignty which TM isn't allowing. Taking back control of our country obviously has different meanings as does Brexit.

Apparently 41 MPs have written to Hammond to say that in his Autumn statement they want to hear the details of £350million a week going to the NHS. Yah!

The Banks
Sunday’s newspapers were dominated with threats about how the banks were about to abandon London. This is not the first we’ve heard about this, but it is the first time it’s really hit the main broadsheets to this degree.

There has been talk of the banks going to Paris or Frankfurt due to passporting problems and a desire for transactions to be in the Eurozone – an issue that was already getting pressure in London prior to Brexit.
Paris has started a campaign to try and attract banks saying “Tired of the Fog? Try the Frogs! Choose Paris La Defense” with a picture of a Frog with a tie.

Yet a couple of weeks ago CityAm were quoted as saying that the French Finance minister had been told that many banks were moving back New York. This is also a view that is shared by Guido Fawkes
order-order.com/2016/10/24/247670/
who lists reasons why French will not be the preferred option – which includes French taxation laws (more of this in a bit).

Whether this is possible comes down to the EU rules end up being. Why move to New York, which will suffer the same passporting problem to the UK? They will still need small entry offices in the EU like London would. With the falling pound you would think London would be an attractive place even with wider cost cutting concerns because it will have lower running costs.

It has to come down to how concerned people are about the stabililty of the UK politically and economically and whether people want to work in London.

So the coverage over the weekend wasn’t actually anything really new. It’s just the publicity it’s been getting is, as it moves up the political agenda and the banks turn up the heat on the issue.

Here are a few things around the headlines that add a bit more to the story.

First up is Farage’s reaction to this. He is not happy and thinks the banks have been throwing their weight around and don’t accept the result in an interview with LBC:
www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/farage-the-banks-dont-accept-brexit/

I was confused by his response because he seemed to say that the EU targeted bankers and hedge funds as targets for taxation and this had left to the lose of jobs in the UK. I find this confusing given the more general UKIP anti-establishment / anti-bankers rhetoric. This seems to be supporting LESS rather than more taxation of banks and seems to be largely defensive of hedge funds. Which fits with a free market model, but certainly not the way it was presented at the referendum with bankers being bad.

Then we have a comment from Jo Maugham QC (whose speciality is tax law) in retweet from 24th June
Jo Maugham QC @ JolyonMaugham
If top 5,000 earners leave, it will cost us in income taxes alone what Tories were trying to cut from the welfare bill #HugABanker

This suggests that even the loss of a few of these earners would have a huge impact on treasury finances. The whole of the banking sector does not need to relocate for it to be a problem. Just parts of it, due to the uncertainty.

In response to the suggestion that the solution to the banks fleeing Brexit Britain should be corporation tax cuts he responses

Jo Maugham QC‏@JolyonMaugham
^As Brexiteers chomp at the bit to deliver more tax cuts to their pals, remember Tories have already spent £15bn pa on corporation tax cuts.
Which received the reply^
Anthony Painter‏@anthonypainter
Coincidentally, an amount that would easily fund #thersa #basicincome model.....

A suggestion that the cost of trying to keep the banks was the same as providing people a guaranteed minimum income which is being trialled in several countries. It’s a point, which in the context of May’s talk of 'A country that works for everyone’ and increasing use of technology in industry is highly relevant in terms of who is being prioritised and why.

Faisal Islam also had a good look at the subject as a whole using this treasury document on tax revenues making a number of interesting observations which have implications and importance to a few aspects of Brexit:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539194/Jun16_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Cutting corporation tax from 20p to 10p? - Treasury's own calculation of the static exchequer cost is £17.7bn a year.. or £340m a week. Now obviously the "dynamic" analysis of that - in terms of how much extra revenue created by attracting HQs etc would be smaller. Is it? Surely we'd gain some HQs if corporation tax was 10p?

Douglas McWilliams ‏@DMcWilliams_UK
I did some maths with a dynamic model few years ago. It would take about 10 years before a 10p rate paid for itself. Suspect cost lower now

Andrew Robertson ‏@arobertsonphoto
@faisalislam @ChristianCkb21 @twlldun but Irish rate only slightly higher, Co's more likely to want to be in EU than an, isolated, UK surely

Ronan Hell-aney ‏@delexical
@arobertsonphoto @faisalislam @ChristianCkb21 @twlldun EU rules on transfer pricing dictate whether EMEA HQs would ever go to London.

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Found a great HMRC spreadsheet explaining how much each tax raises over time - massive, surprising shifts under Cameron government. In 2009/10 HMRC raised £415bn. By 15/16 it was £534bn - UP £119bn while Cameron and Osborne were in Downing Street

Of the £119bn extra raised under Cam/ Os . Income Tax accounted for £23bn. Almost all of it PAYE, about £5bn extra in Capital Gains Tax, and £18bn extra in National Insurance Contributions.

The biggy - can you guess?? .While Cam/Os in Downing Street, VAT receipts soared by £45bn two fifths of total tax rise (reflects 15%-20%)

Total Corporation tax was up £8bn on year before change of Govt/ recession trough. Stable from start of Gov at £44bn, despite rate cuts

My oh my - check out the actual receipts from North Sea over time (offshore Corp tax + PRT) 2008/9: £12.3 billion. 2015/16 £ -0.024 bn
[RTB: Its gone negative – we are giving away money. An article about this explains why: www.carbonbrief.org/uk-taxpayers-handed-shell-usd123m-in-2015

Despite Cameron/ Osborne rhetoric on Inheritance Tax (saved them vs Brown snap election), guess what? IHT take doubled £2.3bn - £4.6bn and Stamp Duty more than doubled - though thats down to jump in transactions too

Check out how much money raised from Bank Levy - £3.4bn a year - could some of that be deployed to pay for Single Market passports?

Here are mostly the sin taxes - tobacco, booze etc all stable, apart from Betting and Air Passenger Duty have seen big increases

Postscript: Swiss tax deal was a one year wonder. Could that last column "customs duties" be set to shoot up post Brexit?? Or come down?

And how does this fit in with May's vision to pursue a 'fair taxation' system which she went on about in the Conservative Party Conference too?

You really have to ask if she has any clue over the finances of it.

VAT and income tax going up when other costs are going on, would be a double squeeze but you can’t help but wonder if there is any other way to fill financial black blacks if any of those 5000 big earners decide to leave.

Now the devolved regions of the UK are being bought into play, how does EU membership reflect on the devolution legislation which created them ?

I was fascinated to learn that the Good Friday agreement (which is with another sovereign country) was underpinned with an assumption the UK would never leave the EU. How does the Scottish and Welsh devolution factor into that ?

Does the UK leaving the EU have the potential to invalidate or contradict devolution ? Not so much a problem for Scotland - to be fair they have never wavered. But would such a situation muddy Welsh waters. Yes you can have Brexit, but you have to lose some devolved powers, but trust us - we'll make it up to you

it's not being discussed because other countries have their own issues to discuss, to do with own governments -- because they're are not a superstate but sovereign nations. Foreign policy is taken up by more relevant issues such as Syria, Iraq, American elections, etc. When Brexit is discussed the emphasis is on the difficult, xenophobic and isolationist position of the UK government. Wake up call, now: Europe sees UK as a nuisance, and the Brexiters who have repeated for months that EU will bend over backwards for UK have to accept that's bollocks.

The Four Parts of The Union
Today the news is dominated by talk of how May is making fresh attempts at working with NI, Scotland and Wales.
There’s two, perhaps three drivers to this.

First this comes after last week’s revelation that the ministers for Wales, Scotland and NI were not part of the Brexit Cabinet which seemed to send out the message that they were not important.

My thought is, therefore, this move is in no small part, damage limitation to the poor PR this has created. The tones are much softer.

The second reason is that the Institute for Government have a document out which looks at the issue at length.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_four%20nation_Brexit_briefing_v6.pdf

It was critical of how May at first took an approach which seemed to include the devolved governments and then sidelined them and warns of a potential constitutional crisis looming.

The third reason is the article 50 challenge which might throw up something which really does put power into the hand of the devolved governments by giving them some sort effective veto and how it now appears to be more of a challenge than the government had first considered.

All three suggest the government hasn’t been handling it well and are being forced to backtrack and listen again.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/24/theresa-may-constitutional-crisis-brexit-deal-institute-for-government
Guardian article on the Institute for government report.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/sturgeons-secessionist-fantasy-rejected-europe-ask-theresa-may/
Sturgeon’s secessionist fantasy has been rejected by Europe. So why does she ask Theresa May?

The Spectator points out that Sturgeon’s suggestions for a flexible suggestion have already been shot down

‘Downing Street says the PM is set to rebuff calls for a flexible Brexit, which would allow parts of the UK to have their own arrangement,’ said the BBC radio news this morning. Not quite. This notion has been rejected in Europe, where the idea of doing some kind of separate deal with Scotland or any constituent part of the UK was never a deal. The ‘options’ that the SNP talk about do not exist as far as the EU is concerned: it is a giant bluff.

And then pins the real reason on it being poor nationalist opportunism

So why is this even an issue? Because so much of the London media hasn’t worked out that it is being gamed by the SNP – and encouraged to take unworkable propositions seriously. The nationalists exist to advance a fake narrative of Scotland vs the UK. Sturgeon sees in Brexit a chance to play her favourite game

www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/ignoring-devolved-nations-brexit-risks-breaking-uk
Ignoring devolved nations on Brexit "risks breaking up the UK"
The New Statesman, in a similar vein to the Spector, with an opposite editorial line.

I actually think that the Indy Ref 2 thing is more of a distraction rather than a driver of the government’s renewed attempts to engaged with the devolved assemblies and Sturgeon knows this.

www.ft.com/content/bd3f4690-97c0-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582
A ‘flexible’ Brexit will protect Scotland’s interests
We must secure close relations with Europe, including single market membership
FT piece by Sturgeon

It is worth repeating the political backdrop to Scotland’s place in the Brexit narrative: every single part of Scotland voted to remain in Europe, but a Conservative UK government, with just one MP in Scotland, is now threatening to remove us from the EU. That is not democratically acceptable so the approach I have outlined is aimed at ensuring Scotland’s voice is respected and its economic and social interests protected.

And, while I accept that there is a mandate to take England and Wales out of the EU, I do not accept there is any such mandate to take any part of the UK out of the single market. The manifesto on which the Conservatives won a majority at the 2015 general election could not have been clearer. It said: “We say Yes to the single market.”

The pursuit of a hard Brexit by some in the UK government is as unwarranted politically as it is ill advised economically. And the growing number of voices against this has opened the door to the possibility of a cross party coalition to avert a hard Brexit for the UK as a whole. The Scottish National party will be part of that coalition.

That’s hardly pushing Indy Ref 2. That’s pushing a pro-Single Market coalition.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/mps-must-think-bold-to-make-brexit-work---and-so-must-nicola-stu/
MPs must think bold to make Brexit work - and so must Nicola Sturgeon
The Telegraph is critical of Sturgeon too.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/24/brexit-strategy-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-direct-line-david-davis-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get 'direct line' on Brexit strategy
Leaders will be offered new official forum by Theresa May in which they can work with David Davis to help shape EU exit

This is certainly a new development and direction in comparison to May’s comments about not allowing nationalists to scupper her plans.

That's fine, just asking.

We have always been a nuisance to the EU so no change there, and I didn't for one minute think the EU would bend over backwards for us, if that was the case David Cameron would have got what he asked for all those months ago.

The only thing he didn't get was the emergency break on immigration!

Although I'm sure if the UK had been willing to accept other countries having emergency breaks on the four freedoms applying to the UK then it would have happened.

I'm really interested to know why we think David Cameron didn't get what he asked for. He did. It was shocking that he did, actually.

We have always been a nuisance to the EU

Actually, I think the EU has benefited from a powerful nation which prevented a Franco-German love-in dominating it's development. A lot of seasoned - and wise - European politicians will be sorry if the UK leaves.

WE may have repeated challenged the EU - but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Re the "direct line", this was what @peterwalker99 (political editor for the Guardian) tweeted

"@peterwalker99: Sturgeon sounding less than impressed with promise of 'hotline' to David Davis: "I don't want a lot of silent calls"."

and she didn't mean nuisance calls

Jessica Elgot ‏@jessicaelgot
Sturgeon is not happy with Number 10 meeting - says she can't undermine a Brexit strategy which "doesn't exist"

Sturgeon:
I’m not seeking to undermine anyone, I don’t know what the UK’s negotiating position is, so there’s nothing there that I can see to undermine. I’m the first minister of Scotland; 62% voted to remain.

I wouldn’t be doing my job if I wasn’t out there talking to people and doing my best to protect Scotland’s interests.

I can’t undermine something that doesn’t exist, and at the moment it doesn’t seem to me like there is a UK negotiating strategy, which is one of the sources of great frustration.

Seems fair comment

Go Sturgeon!

May might just aswell invoke 50 now. It's not as if something magical is going to present itself in March. The EU are waiting for the UK to go so that they get on with the real world.

Can't, legal challenges abound. Fairly sure no matter what was said the advisory nature of the ref means it must be debated.