Westministenders. Boris worries about the land of his birth and simply wonders, what the hell next!?

[RedToothBrush]

Of all the Westministers intro I’ve done to date, I think this has been the hardest to write.

My first thought is where on earth to start, and then where to stop with how Trump’s victory affects us in the UK. It completely changes international relations. The political fall out is going to be considerable and potentially radioactive in its toxicity.

To hardened Brexiteers, America falling to Trump represents the domino effect in progress. It will embolden them. And the fear is that on 4th December both Italy and Austria could fall next as they respectively, face a referendum and a re-run of the presidential election.

And then there’s France…

All of this is a threat to the EU. It just leaves everyone, including the UK asking what next? And what of our relationship with the US? Who knows? It makes it look around and say, can we rely on the US, and without the US surely we have no choice but to grow closer to the EU. Perhaps there is a role for us in-between but there really are no guarantees and do we want to make that choice?

The suggestion is that May has no love for Trump. And whilst the hard right might harbour fantasies about becoming the 51st State, which seem to be led by Farage himself, this exposes the one red line that could bring the fury of the country down on the government to its extinction. The NHS. Its not for sale. Its not to be subject to a trade deal.

In a curious turn of events, rumours grow that the government will contend at the Supreme Court that a50 CAN be reversed afterall. Davis had personally been responsible for the original line that its not reversible. This was a political decision to tie us into leaving, and show intent and seriousness to Leavers. Yet it was always a crazy one that is not in the national interest.

Going back on this totally changes the game.

It would be a move that will go down well with Remainers and Liberal Leavers but will enrage the hardliners especially if the ECJ is part of this new tact.

It off loads a pile of risk and it is the prudent and sensible approach. It is much needed to protect the best interests of the country overall. Its also that magic ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ for that promised Nissan deal.

The change of tact would also help to appease MPs and much opposition to Brexit. And in doing so, also lessens the chances of a HoC rebellion against May and also reduces the chances of an early election, thus is perhaps a more stabilising way forward. It encourages negotiation of a good deal that other parties and rebels will also find agreeable rather than them feeling like they are being held to ransom on.

It would almost certainly delay things and might interfere with May’s precious timetable.

But there’s France… and the Presidential elections are in April/May

Do we really want to trigger article 50, if post Trump, the domino really is likely to fall there too and Le Pen wins the Presidency? There is suddenly a potential ally for major EU reform. Or even its collapse. Now is not the time to do something rash and drastic but to hold our nerve just a little longer.

It makes sense to everyone to hang fire and delay. If only briefly to see what now happens.

There are dangers in doing this though. The prospect of the ECJ being involved in a case which is in essence about our Constitution, is not only embarrassing but could be explosive. It will raise fears of leavers that Brexit will not happen. It will play to the extremes and the agenda of UKIP. It exposes judges to the press and criticism that they are activists and also trying to stop Brexit. Though Gove seems to have changed his tune and is defending them rather more than he was previously...

With tensions running high will Farage get his 100,000 march? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell on that one. He is trying to win through intimidation though, and that makes people fear him if we don’t do his bidding and what’s happening over in the States only emboldens him and makes others fear him more. He is divisive and never will be able to serve the national interest, because of it no matter how honest his delusions of being an ambassador to Trump are.

It just adds to the growing sense of helplessness and growing question of whether the proud tradition of British liberalism can even survive? It becomes appears to many this is ultimately the goal of Mr Farage – and not the EU. The EU is just a protector of it.

Well I don’t believe that Farage does have it all his way and has the monopoly on people power, nor a connection to the public that no one else has.

One of the themes developing on twitter, is one about passion, hope and a new sense of purpose. One to defend British values and not become like Trumpland. We have a warning and an example of how it really could be worse and it’s not a pretty sight.

I remember during the referendum one poster unsure of how to vote, asking simply:
“I don't want to spoil my vote. I want to vote, and vote with conviction”.

It was a question I found difficult to answer at the time. To me it highlighted how much people did want something to believe in and to not having that. We must start to build on that, and provide that alternative.

But I do believe those things to believe in were there all along. The NHS and our open democracy, whatever the flaws and imperfections of our institutions they have endured and survived for a reason – and not just for the benefit of the ‘elite’.

We just took them for granted, and now we are going to have to stand up and make sure people know that by speaking out, and know that while moderates might have it in their nature to compromise there are also some things we just can not loose in the process. We must not be drawn into a battle along violent lines as it will be used against those who do. We can’t loose our soul in trying to defend what is precious, nor should we try and reassure ourselves by finding justification for things that can not and should not be justified.

The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in notes to himself;

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

I think that message rings true now both for Leave and Remain supporters alike. You might have made a decision on 23rd June but you still have other choices to make now.

Choose to stay sane.

We need a bit of passion people. Its doable, there's lots of passionate people here but we need ideas NOW.

I think somebody said downthread that we in the U.K. have much more in common with Europe than the US, but have tended not to think that due to the obvious divider/unifier of language.

I keep thinking about the referendum result and that, despite the efforts of Farage/Banks, despite our far-right press, despite decades of successive governments blaming anything they like on the EU, Leave still only won by a tiny margin.

Now the US is starting to look more like an alien place to many British citizens and now the EU is maybe starting to wake up to the fact they probably need the UK, with all its "foibles"(!!) maybe now is the time to build on pro-European sentiments within the U.K.

Not particularly pro EU feeling, but pro-European, lots of memes and images of what we have in common with the rest of Europe, what we can be proud of as Europeans, rather than as Brits.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, I just think we're probably more pro European than we realise and with Trump's election now is the time to build on those feelings.

dudley - this isn't meant to be in any way aggressive, but what makes you think that Europe needs the UK? I wish I had that feeling but I get the impression that the EU will do very nicely without us although some members may be sad to see us go.

I think in the new world of the US becoming increasingly protectionist and unwilling to use its military might for non-selfish ends Europe needs to stand together more, rather than less. The UK is still a rich nation with a big defence capability. The future is less predictable than it was a week ago.

Re Lurking's comments on the wwc in US and more broadly labour market participation and working conditions I think this article quoting the head of the ILO gives the counter argument on massaging labour market participation via zero hours contracts, the gig economy and in the case of women I would argue benefits in return for work and childcare - of course this also creates "jobs" in the childcare sector.

uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/economic-frustration-spawned-trump-brexit-130047770.html

but what makes you think that Europe needs the UK?

It's like stacking a centrifuge (trivia buzz. In a 12 slot centrifuge, how many combinations are unstable ?). The UK actually has played a balancing role between the Franco-German tendency. Something Italy has been particularly aware of, but also Spain, and Holland.

With the UK gone, there will be a centre-of-gravity effect. Or could be.

Not particularly talking about Scotland or England, but bigotry and bullying
are the dark side of 'banter'. It doesn't take much to turn people against each other during bitter political campaigns. I must say that this is putting in my mind the sort of comments some people think it is perfectly acceptable to say to someone with red hair (family experience), and the South Park ginger kids episode which was supposed to be a parody and the ensuing issues in a Rotherham School. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Kids

duddly I think how "European" you feel may depend on where you are in the country and personal connections.

I live in Scotland and so it is as much effort to fly to Europe as it is to the US. DH is half French and I having worked and made friends with people from a whole range of EU nationalities. I also have many US friends having lived and worked there. I would align my outlook more with the US than the rest of Europe. I am not sure how typical I am but as this thread demonstrates the Scottish diaspora are spread far and wide and most have family connections living outside the EU.

of course this also creates "jobs" in the childcare sector.

And only yesterday, the negative effect of pisspoor childcare was highlighted by businesses in the UK. The takeaway point being that childcare should be regarded as an essential infrastructure like roads and communications.

we have since come to Belgium and it is much easier here tbh. We sound like the Flemish

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7763/CBP-7763.pdf
House of Commons Library Briefing Paper

Brexit: Article 50 TEU and the EU Court
Published 14/11/2016

Contents

1. An 'appeal' to the EU Court?
2. CJEU preliminary hearings
3. To refer or not to refer?

Some extracts:
SUMMARY

The ‘acte clair’ doctrine
If a court of last instance has some uncertainty as to the correct interpretation of EU law, it must refer a question on the interpretation of EU law or the EU Treaties to the CJEU, but not if the national court decides something is clear “beyond reasonable doubt”. This is known as the ‘acte clair’ doctrine, and it has been established in the case law of the CJEU (largely in CILFIT ).

The case of Gina Miller at the High Court
In Miller the Court recorded it as common ground that the Article 50(2) notice is irrevocable and therefore the High Court did not rule on this point. It ruled that the UK Government could not trigger Article 50 TEU without parliamentary involvement. The irrevocability of Article 50 was an important underlying factor, even though the Court did not rule on this point.

The Government has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Its skeleton grounds for appeal do not mention irrevocability.

The question of whether a notice of withdrawal can be revoked
There is a general principle of international law, set out in Article 68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , that a notification of intention to withdraw from a treaty “may be revoked at any time before it takes effect”. This provision does not override any specific arrangements in a treaty.

The EU Treaty is silent on this matter, and although the parties to the Miller case assumed that notice of withdrawal is irrevocable, there are possible arguments, and a preponderance of academic opinion, to the contrary.

If the CJEU were to rule on the revocability question, it would interpret purposively and not according to academic opinion. While academic views are non-determinative, the CJEU might “take account of” what the Vienna Convention says.

2.1 Article 267 TFEU
There is no ‘appeal’ as such from a national court to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides a mechanism whereby a national court refers a question of the interpretation of EU law or Treaties to the CJEU. In these cases the national court suspends proceedings, and once the CJEU has given its ruling, the national court resumes its proceedings and gives judgment in the light of the EU Court’s preliminary ruling. The process usually takes around 16 months.

16 months!!!? Some how I think if it happens the case will be fast tracked but still!

Article 267 states:
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union; Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon. Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court. If such a question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State with regard to a person in custody, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall act with the minimum of delay.

Minimum delay. Well that's something at least.

2.3 Damages for not referring
The EU Court’s judgment in Köbler , September 2003, established that applicants can claim damages from the supreme court of a Member State for not referring a question when it was obliged to do so. In Ferreira da Silva , September 2015, when the Portuguese Supreme Court refused to refer a question to the EU Court, arguing that its interpretation of “transfer of a business” was beyond reasonable doubt, the applicants started a new case, claiming damages from the Supreme Court for failing to refer a question when it was obliged to do so.

So if the Supreme Court does have a referral, then the UK government might have to choose between waiting so it can use the Royal Prerog or just going through parliament. It seems to me, however, if say the Scottish government joined the case and asked for a referral to determine reversibility (which seems like a good idea to me), then the case might have to go to the ECJ whether they choose the parliamentary route or the prerog route otherwise they leave themselves potentially open to damages.

Or so I thought. Except its not that simple!

3. To refer or not to refer?
3.1 Experts disagree
Opinions among academics and constitutional lawyers differ on whether the Supreme Court would be obliged to refer a question to the CJEU in connection with Article 50 TEU. Questions concern the revocability or not of Article 50 TEU and the phrase in Article 50(1) that a decision to withdraw from the EU should be in accordance with a Member State’s “own constitutional requirements“. Neither of these points was argued in Miller . Albert Sánchez Graells, Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol Law School, writes that referral to the CJEU is “legally unavoidable” and “not doing so triggers a risk of infringement of EU law by the UK due to the acts (or omission, in this case) of its highest court”.

On the other hand, Mikolaj Barczentewicz, University of Oxford, argues that the Supreme Court should not refer to the CJEU: … it is at the very least arguable that Parliament did not intend for EU rules, like the duty to make references to the EU Court, to have any effect in UK law in matters of withdrawal from the EU. This would mean that, in UK law, the Supreme Court would have neither duty, nor even a power to make the reference.

The reference would not be an option. It would be for the Supreme Court to interpret Article 50 TEU alone and with final authority, just like domestic courts routinely interpret international law.

Article 50(1) states that a Member State may decide to leave the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements“. Although this was not argued in Miller , some commentators thought this might make the national process for serving an Article 50 notice a matter of EU law.

But the recent case of Shindler indicates otherwise. Here the Court of Appeal suggested that the legislative choice made by Parliament in enacting the ECA was only to make provision for the effect of EU law to the extent the UK remains a Member of the EU.

Oliver Garner, European University Institute, says the decision to notify is an internal constitutional requirement, which “does not yet fall within the scope of the Court of Justice’s interpretative authority because the relevant EU law – Article 50 – has not yet been activated”. On the other hand, Garner continues, if the UK triggered Article 50 TEU and then attempted unilaterally to revoke this notice by Prerogative powers which were challenged in the UK courts, the UK courts would be under an obligation to refer to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU.

So referral might be
a) legally unavoidable
b) not needed as the Supreme Court has the power to make the decision about whether its reversible or not under its own authority
c) the Supreme Court does not have the authority to refer until AFTER a50 is triggered. Then if it was needed it could be referred to the ECJ. (But since there was no guarantee of this at the point of a50 being triggered you would have to assume that it was not reversible unless the situation arose.

Phewww! Got that? Confusing as hell. I am betting that the government's change of tact could be down to a gamble that they contend b) that the Supreme Court has the power to rule that its reversible (as directed under the Vienna Convention). In which case the suggestion is that they can get rid of the challenge without an embarrassing referral to the ECJ because the case falls apart if it reversible.

Except it seems I am wrong on this point too!

3.3 Revocability and the Miller judgment
It is difficult to know how the revocability question affected the High Court’s judgment in Miller . In paragraph 51 the Court states that the effect of triggering Article 50 would be to deny the rights in section 2 (1) of the ECA, which enshrines Treaty rights and other directly applicable EU law into UK law. Article 50 notification, according to the Court, would strip the provision “of any practical effect”. Paragraphs 54-67 expand on this point and indicate that the Court accepted the claimant’s submission that it is the Article 50 notification, and the UK’s subsequent withdrawal from the EU, that would deprive the rights provided by the ECA of their effect. Putting aside the question of whether the ECA actually contains any domestic legal rights, a point debated extensively by constitutional lawyers, it is debatable how the revocability question would have altered the High Court’s reasoning had it been contested by the either the Government or the claimants. On the one hand, if Article 50 notification is revocable then it is at least legally possible that the act of notification would not have the effect of depriving EU law rights. On the other hand, even if the notice was legally revocable, the notice could still have the domestic legal effect identified by the High Court.

So the court could still in theory, decide that it's reversible but the government still can't use the royal prerog because of other issues anyway.

3.4 Arguments supporting revocability
Legal and political views
The European Council President, Donald Tusk, has said that revoking an Article 50 notification would be “formally, legally” possible. JeanClaude Piris, former director-general of the EU Council’s Legal Service, also believes “there is no legal obstacle to the UK changing its mind, in accordance with its constitutional requirements”.12 Lord Kerr, who as the UK’s Permanent Representative to the EU helped draft the EU exit clause in the Constitutional Treaty which preceded the Lisbon Treaty, told the BBC: “It is not irrevocable - you can change your mind while the process is going on”.

In evidence to the Lords EU Committee in March 2016, Professor Derrick Wyatt argued that there is nothing in the wording of Article 50 TEU to say that a country can’t change its mind:

"It is in accord with the general aims of the treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a state withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind, but the politics of it would be completely different. But he also said “the politics of the referendum result would be likely to rule out that option”.

Sir David Edward, former Judge of the EU Court of Justice, said it was “absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government”. But he too speculated about the politics of the situation, and thought the other Member States might only allow the UK not to withdraw after notification if it went “back to zero”; there would be “no new optouts”.

Paul Craig, Professor of English Law University of Oxford, believes Article 50 is revocable because of the relevant principles of international law and for practical political reasons. Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of The Constitution Unit, thought political reality might take over, and the other 27 Member States would allow the UK to change its mind if they wanted the UK to stay in the EU. But, he cautioned: … that would again require unanimity – either to amend Article 50 (and we know how much effort is required to change an EU treaty) or, in effect, to extend permanently the two-year negotiation window. Hence, any member state could drive a hard bargain, potentially one detrimental to the UK.

The former Liberal Democrat MEP, Andrew Duff, also regarded revocability as a political as well as a legal issue:
That Article 50 is silent on the matter of revocation does not mean that a change of direction would be illegal under EU law (as long as the CJEU were convinced that the switch was constitutional). The EU is well practised in the art of the stopped clock. Given the collateral damage done to the remaining EU by Brexit, a notification that London had changed its mind would be met with very great, if somewhat exasperated relief

So of these experts most seem to suggest that it is in theory likely to be reversible, but some state it might be a bit more complicated than that, stating that
a) it might be legally possible but politically impossible
b) it might require a unanimous agreement by the other 27 states to allow it
c) there might be conditions attached to reversibility.

All that is about as clear as mud, but does offer an alternative explanation as to why the government might have changed tact and why it might not be as simple as it simply being reversibility if we feel like it too. All of which are important points and might affect how a50 is handled.

Howabout- yes I guess so, I'm just suggesting a counter attack to the nationalist rhetoric playing on people's emotions used by UKIP etc could focus on trying to increase pro-European sentiments

reaction.life/meet-britains-newest-political-party-stupid-party/?sf

The Irish Times is reporting this:
"IT is understood Dr Fox said that if the UK is not granted access to the Single Market, the EU would have to pay compensation to countries such as South Korea, with whom the EU has a free trade deal. Losing Britain as a member of the EU meant that the market for South Korea would shrink, and the EU would have to pay compensation to that country for it."
via Sam Coates on twitter

The original article is here

The Centre for European Reform aren't convinced:
Charles Grant ‏@CER_Grant 30m30 minutes ago
.@SamCoatesTimes @BrunoBrussels @OpenEurope @CER_Korteweg This is the first time I have heard anything like that.

On the 'Facebook distortion' effect, lots of tech commentators are pointing out a Gizmodo story today about how they had found a way to reduce fake/hoax stories but didn't release it due to the fact that it massively impacted on right-wing news sources, and it was coming in the wake of the criticisms of the perceived bias in the 'Trending Stories':

According to two sources with direct knowledge of the company’s decision-making, Facebook executives conducted a wide-ranging review of products and policies earlier this year, with the goal of eliminating any appearance of political bias. One source said high-ranking officials were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories, but disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people’s feeds. According to the source, the update was shelved and never released to the public. It’s unclear if the update had other deficiencies that caused it to be scrubbed.

“They absolutely have the tools to shut down fake news,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous citing fear of retribution from the company. The source added, “there was a lot of fear about upsetting conservatives after Trending Topics,” and that “a lot of product decisions got caught up in that.”

"IT is understood Dr Fox said that if the UK is not granted access to the Single Market, the EU would have to pay compensation to countries such as South Korea, with whom the EU has a free trade deal. Losing Britain as a member of the EU meant that the market for South Korea would shrink, and the EU would have to pay compensation to that country for it."

Sorry, bollocks. But it did get "Liam Fox" into the news - albeit late in the day. Maybe he's hoping for the first editions ?

The European Commission would rather agree with you Lurking -

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes 3m3 minutes ago
European Commission on Liam Fox / SKorea "I'm not aware of such statement. I think it's better to try to clarify that with Mr. Liam." (sic)

Merrymouse, it looks like the theory around the nudge was used - but in the oppposite way to what public administrators generally want . If you are making it more difficult to vote, you are nudging them to do nothing. Maybe it was just general incompetence on the part of the state adminstrators - there are many who think it was deliberate? Not voting is then the easy win - I need to be really committed to google my polling station, find some id, possibly take time off work, queue for hours etc. My motivation for reward needs to be high to do that. And it doesn't have to be deliberate - even the weather or a match on TV will distract.

Regarding passion, one of the issues with Brexit is of course the image of the EU and Europe in the UK and the lack of passion that anyone seemed to be able to muster up for the Remain campaign. There have been years of lies and negative press about the EU (see below for an interesting parallel from the US view) and it was always going to be an uphill battle to counter that (I'm still amazed at the sheer stupidity of running the referendum and thinking staying was a given..).

I'm Irish and speaking very much as an outsider in this debate - generally speaking we haved loved the EU because we have been rewarded by it, emotionally and in cold hard cash. And we know we have been rewarded by it because for years lots of good things that happened were due to EU directives that improved Irish lives in terms of social and gender equality as well as infrastructure. And these good things were communicated to people - either because we knew our politicians wouldn't have done it themselves or even simply because of the enormous blue signs everywhere in the eighties.

I think this is my generation's general experience, the Celtic Tiger pups may be less grateful to the EU and obviously there are those not too keen on it. But, in short, when we think of the EU in Ireland, there are positive associations and although the bureacratic connotations are well known, many hate it and there is plenty of complaining, there is also a base of goodwill to build campaigns on.

It has been so much more difficult to build on any goodwill in the UK. The EU was never given any credit for anything in the UK - anything good was repackaged by the goverment as their idea. If I was running an pro-Europe campaign in Ireland for my generation, I guess (and this is very personal), you could include memories of Spanish and Italian students learning English in Dublin, the many EU structural funding signs improving roads around the country, six nations rugby, our viking connections, the lovely French man in the Kerrygold ads Equal Pay being forced on the goverment, holidays in French campsites, working in German factories during university holidays, Italia 90...things that emphasise the shared postive memories and experiences with other European citizens and cultures. You can argue that Europe is not the EU but to all intents and purposes it is, and rejecting the EU is rejecting being seen as European.

If we are in a post fact society and no one cares about whether or not the stats line up, what are the warm connections people have with Europe, (rather than the EU parliment). Who are the Europeans that the British connect with? Surely there are many Europeans working in media and culture, Europeans running loved businesses up and down the country that can show that we do have shared cultures and values.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/hillary-clinton-defeat-republicans-trump-comey

Regarding nudges ... I think they appeal because they are cheap ...

Or Lurking accept that it is cheaper and may be more effective to deliver early years childcare through primary caregivers. My DM stayed at home for 8 years with DB and me and had no problem re-entering the workforce. A consequence of keeping women in the workplace through early years has been to close this option down and trap many women in exploitative work arrangements. The distorting effect of subsiding childcare and using penal tax rates beyond minimum hours within the benefit system have led to huge distortions in what the US calls "pink collar work".

Don't know why its kicking off on twitter. There's something about boasting about twitter followers, rather than for the more obvious reason today, but there's a few people retweeting a news article about Cheshire East UKIP councillor Brian Silvester.

Its about how he was spared jail but fined £70,000 in 2013 after putting vulnerable tenants lives at risk in his properties.

www.crewechronicle.co.uk/news/local-news/cheshire-east-councillor-brian-silvester-5600229

Oh how ironic. How nice to remind everyone UKIP really haven't got the best track record on corruption themselves...

Whoops.

Meanwhile it seems Liam Fox might be making up stuff again;

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Liam Fox said this, according to the Irish Times. Is it factually accurate? @BrunoBrussels @CER_Grant @OpenEurope ?

It is understood Dr Fox said that if the UK was not granted access to the single market, the EU would have to pay comprensation to countries such as South Korea, with whom the EU has a free trade deal. Losing Britain as a member of the single market for South Korea would shrink, and the EU would have to pay compensation to that country for it.

^Charles Grant ‏@CER_Grant
@SamCoatesTimes @BrunoBrussels @OpenEurope @CER_Korteweg This is the first time I have heard anything like that.

On voting my US friends on both sides joke about the Democrat mantra of vote early vote often. It is no surprise that California has one of the highest levels of absentee votes.

I agree that the reports of closing down / restricting polling options in neighbourhoods are worrying but I think you have to counterbalance the discussion with the Democrat's huge "get the vote out" operations.

cross post with all of you!

In any other universe, it would be a worrying fact that a chief negotiator had the such flawed understanding of ... well what he;s supposed to be negotiating.

But in 2016, post Brexit, post Trump, it's just another day at the office.

And we are supposed to tell our children to respect adults, and society ?

Poor, poor mites.