Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

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

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/10/2016 16:42

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
CeciledeVolanges · 13/10/2016 14:08

Red it sounds like Harry Potter - "neither can live while the other survives"...

Motheroffourdragons · 13/10/2016 14:09

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

Peregrina · 13/10/2016 14:14

I am wondering about a move to Scotland - it would depend on what the rest of the family were likely to do.

prettybird · 13/10/2016 14:14

Actually that's a good point Red - will Theresa May have sufficient resources to fight on two fronts Hmm

She could always refuse Scotland the right to have the referendum; in the same vein as threatening to impose the Great Repeal Act even on devolved areas Hmm

Motheroffourdragons · 13/10/2016 14:18

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

Motheroffourdragons · 13/10/2016 14:19

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

prettybird · 13/10/2016 14:25

The other difference in the Indyref vote compared to the Euro vote is that 16 year olds can vote.

It's exactly the same voting population as for local elections.

Ds turned 16 last month - to add to do my 4 No voting EU supporting friends (actually, it's one friend and 3 members of her family) who have committed to vote Yes this time round. Grin (She promised me in advance, when I warned her that the greater risk to Scotland's EU membership was voting No - and she's standing by her promise)

Peregrina · 13/10/2016 14:28

I have been working off and on, whilst keeping an eye on the threads, but I really ought to do something more productive.
Off to Witney to campaign! This is quite a new experience for me.

QuintessentialShadow · 13/10/2016 14:33

I wonder if the UCL CLassics department is still pretty much comprised of students from Italy and Greece? Will they still come?

RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 14:40

She could refuse Scotland the right.

I suspect this would also have a political consequence though both in Westminister and Holyrood.

When I was reading some of the constitutional stuff about the Union, it stressed that Scotland (and the people of Scotland) could not be forced to do something against its will.

Refusing a referendum could strengthen the case and spark a constitutional crisis. (More legal mess?)

Sturgeon potentially could also have the option of an 'unofficial' referendum if it was refused officially too. She could, in theory, get that through the Scottish Parliament as she has a majority there. Catalonia have been threatening the Spanish government in this way. By this she could establish a 'democratic mandate'. (Ha!)

Of course this could also backfire if she took this approach.

There are risks for both May and Sturgeon here, but overall I think the situation is to Sturgeon's favour despite the previous ref result especially if May continues on the same course and the economic issues get worse and start to hit people's pockets.

As I say, I don't think Sturgeon has been left with much of an alternative.

I am seriously starting to wonder if May can survive until the end of March. Under normal circumstances a collapse in government would damage the economy. At this junction, you start to wonder if the markets would actually view it favourably as an indication that we need to preserve more of our relationship with the EU rather than pursue hard brexit and get rid of this government full of people who keep putting their foot in it.

It would in theory trigger a GE, but I doubt May could stand for it. However it would also possibly represent a national crisis too. The last one we had was WWII where the King took the step of asking someone to be PM and form a coalition government in the national interest.

Yes this perhaps is a wild and very extreme scenario. But would you rule it out ? Its highly unlikely, but not beyond the realms of possibility either imo. I guess it depends how far down the rabbit warren we end up being led.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 14:42

(^ Wild situation where Ruth Davidson becomes PM???)

OP posts:
prettybird · 13/10/2016 14:52

Being strictly accurate, NS doesn't have a majority in Holyrood - but "Independence Supporting Parties" do (the Scottish Greens are pro-Independence).

It will be interesting to see if any Scottish Labour MSPs support the bill.

Peregrina · 13/10/2016 15:00

I think actually a proper Coalition with representatives from all parties could be a good way to resolve the mess we are in.

RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 15:01

Me too Peregina. Me too. Which is why I'm not ruling it out. It may come to that if we carry on like this.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 15:25

www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/santos-and-m-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union-transcripts/
This mornings a50 case.

More from Conor James McKinney:
The Divisional Court has resumed the Article 50 case.

The Article 50 case has resumed, with the judges asking questions of Lord Pannick QC about his argument.

Lord Pannick says that triggering Article 50 is the "firing of the bullet that inevitably causes us to leave" the EU.

Lord Pannick says he has an alternative argument if main one fails: the 1972 Act contains implicit limitations on govt power (to leave EU).

Govt says Art 50 is a matter "high, if not the highest, policy". Pannick dismisses the height of the policy as relevant to the court's role. Lord Pannick refers the court to a Foreign Office memo on the Ponsonby Rule - the understanding Parliament would be consulted on treaties. Says that it shows an understanding, at the very least, that major amendments to EU treaties require a Parliamentary process - not just govt

Lord Pannick says that the UK's flexible constitution is "not so flexible that basic principles of constitutional law" can be overlooked.

Lord Pannick finishes by saying that his client is still getting "abuse" and "threats", as the court was told at an earlier stage.

Lord Pannick has finished. Lawyer for the second claimant, Deir Dos Santos, is up now. I believe it is Dominic Chambers QC.

He says that the UK is still a representative democracy, referendum or no. Ref was "at most a supplementary constitutional requirement".

Chambers says Parliament must make the decision to leave the EU for the purposes of Article 50. Triggering it a "de facto legislative step".

Dominic Chambers QC mentions the Glorious Revolution and refers the court to the Bill of Rights 1688.

"The pretended power of dispensing with laws... by regal authority... is illegal".

And now to Dicey on the law of the constitution, for a tutorial on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

The essence of it being that Parliament has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever".

Chambers takes the court to the Jackson case, in which parliamentary sovereignty was described as "the bedrock of the British constitution"

Says that decision to leave the EU under Art 50 must be done in accordance with all UK constitutional requirements - ie Parliament approves.

OP posts:
Scot2Be · 13/10/2016 15:28

Somebody posted this link earlier in it has left me fuming, enraged, bewildered.

The Referendum demographics:

The older the voters, the more likely they were to have voted to leave the EU. Nearly three quarters (73%) of 18 to 24 year-olds voted to remain, falling to under two thirds (62%) among 25-34s. A majority of those aged over 45 voted to leave, rising to 60% of those aged 65 or over. Most people with children aged ten or under voted to remain; most of those with children aged 11 or older voted to leave."

Just think about this. It is a bleeding scandal. An utter, utter disgrace that the older population has essentially destroyed our children's future because they felt nostalgic and don't like them foreigners. Utterly, utterly disgraceful. It makes me want to cry.

RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 15:42

Thursday 20th October (same day as the Witney By-Election - might have an influence?)

HoC 9.30am
Oral questions
Exiting the European Union, including Topical Questions

More joy for David Davis to endure.

OP posts:
GloriaGaynor · 13/10/2016 15:58

New analysis from the British Election Study, polling more than 10,000 voters [finds]:

Whereas only 1% of Remainers regret their choice, 6% of Leavers do (a further 4% are undecided, compared with 1% of Remain voters). That would have been enough to have changed the outcome of the referendum to a win for Remain. The theory that many Leavers voted as a protest against the political elite, as well as experts, gets more credibility from the study. Leaver remorse is strongest among those who didn’t expect their side to win: one in ten of them regret their vote.

economist.com

RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 16:31

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
Pannick is a great QC. Anyone wanting to be a lawyer should seize this rare opportunity to read transcript of his submissions. Masterclass.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
However impressive Pannick is in his submissions: this is a finely balanced case. Could go either way on the law.

Avoid wishful thinking.

Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
Lord Thomas: We will proceed to decide case on basis that once triggered, Art 50 is irreversible. Court cannot proceed on an assumption.

Schona Jolly ‏@WomaninHavana
Lord Pannick confirms that is his assertion, not an assumption on his part i.e. That once Art50 is triggered, it cannot be reversed.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
Significant. High Court not having truck with "Article 50 could be revoked" speculation.

To repeat Maugham's point - the idea that a50 none reversalable is to the claimant's favour though politically it is good for the government too.

OP posts:
SwedishEdith · 13/10/2016 17:02

Donald Tusk ‏@eucopresident 5m5 minutes ago Brussels, Belgium
The only real alternative to a "hard Brexit" is "no Brexit". Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

CeciledeVolanges · 13/10/2016 17:24

Scot interesting thought : how old are people on this thread? It doesn't matter but we clearly come from a range of incomes and areas - are we all a similar age too?

CeciledeVolanges · 13/10/2016 17:28

Red There was a debate in Parliament about Scotland and the Petition of Right, sovereignty of the people, would you be interested in the Hansard ref?

jaws5 · 13/10/2016 17:34

Is there an emoticon for nailbiting/whishful thinking? red I'm hooked to this thread, invaluable stuff. Thanks!

RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 17:44

Yes I would Cecilede.

Jo Maugham QC @JolyonMaugham
This, that Dos Santos has dug out, is rather interesting...

Photo of Government response to the report on Referendums in the United Kingdom, 4th Report of Session 2010-11

It states:
We recognise that because of the sovereignity of Parliament referendums cannot be legally in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.

The Government agrees with this recommendation. Under the UK's constitutional arrangements, Parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result.

David Allen Green ‏@DavidAllenGreen
This is not a slam-dunk; and it is a 2011 statement of policy, not law. Not binding.

But: wow. Especially given wording of Article 50(1).

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldconst/34/34.pdf
Source here

I've just moved not to wishful thinking but genuinely hopeful thinking

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 13/10/2016 18:20

Matthew Holehouse ‏@mattholehouse
Tusk tells Boris: "Buy a cake, eat it and see if it is still there on the plate." Adds: "There will be no cake, only salt and vinegar."

A gorilla has escaped its cage at London Zoo. I blame Brexit.

Marmitegate has now apparently reached a settlement deal.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread