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.

I imagine that they would try to bring the 'Great Repeal Bill' forward, and could speed the process up to do so. So less than two years, I think, but almost certainly fouling up the end of March timetable.

This is why the likes of IDS are in such a panic. He has a very sweaty upper lip and keeps trying to shout down reasonable people on chat shows.

Just breaking on BBC:

Government prepares three line Brexit Bill

Norman Smith
Assistant political editor
Posted at
12:32

It is understood the government has prepared a short three line bill to begin the process of leaving the EU - so Theresa May can meet her March deadline to trigger Article 50.

Sources say they believe the legislation is so tightly drawn it will be difficult for critical MPs to amend.

Ministers have drawn up the legislation in the expectation that they may lose their appeal to the Supreme Court, which would force them to consult parliament.

Sources say they would plan to introduce the bill in the Commons immediately after the Supreme Court ruling.

They would hope to push the bill through the Commons in two weeks.

It would then go to the House of Lords where it is understood the government hope peers would back down.

Ministers believe that peers would not dare defy MPs if the Commons had approved the legislation.

Sources say they have devised the bill to be "bombproof" to amendments.

Sources say although the government looked at allowing parliament a vote through "a substantive motion" rather than legislation, they decided this would leave them vulnerable to further legal challenge.

Potentially not enough, if Supreme Court take the line that more is needed. Does not have anything to do with EU or liberal law, but purely British constitutional law. Nor does it have anything to do with claimants either really.

Obama is far from done. He's not going anywhere. He might not be President but he still has power.

Can we lobby members of HOL as well as MPs?

Jo Maugham on BBC article above (Maugham works for legal firm part of the a50 challenge but not involved directly in the case):

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham
1. The BBC is briefing on a three line bill to trigger Brexit. A few thoughts follow
2. Note the word "defy": the Gov't is throwing down the gauntlet. But if constitutional question aren't for the Lords, why do they exist?
3. Tabling an 'amendment-proof' bill shows how determined Executive is to block Parliament's involvement. That's not my idea of democracy.
4. A bill like this raises in stark terms the real strategic question confronting the Claimants: do they push for a reference to Luxembourg?
5. A reference to Luxembourg makes the case much more difficult to win. But that's not the issue.
6. If the 'prize' of winning in the SC really is an unamendable Bill; that's no prize at all.
7. But if the CJEU declares that a notification under Article 50 can be revoked, that is a real prize.
8. The threat to revoke is in practice the only mechanic available to Parliament to police the deal the Executive strikes with the EU.
9. Without that threat, Parliament cannot deliver a 'good' Brexit. (See this extract, predicated on the Executive negotiating a 'bad' deal).

Anyone know why TM is so obsessed with March deadline? Why get into tussles with entrenched people like Hollander, Merkel who might not be in power 6 months on.

Bizarrely too, May is feeding the idea that parliament will block Brexit on the same day the shadow chancellor is openly giving support to Brexit. She is actually undermining public confidence in parliament, which feeds support for Banks agenda ultimately rather than for her...

3am because any later and a50 talks will still be ongoing during the 2020 election if she can hang on that long. She wants it over with before then.

Her ego and personal image, and a promise to hardline of both Leavers and EU.

Nothing else.

Not in the national interest.

3am. Perhaps thinking a50 served will embolden other eu member states to go for their own exit, weakening the eu and forcing some structural rearrangements?

RTB I guess it turns though on who has the power to revoke and upon what basis? If that power is still rested with the govt I don't see that it's much of a prize?

MagikarpetRide triggering a50 at end March 2017 means we leave April 1st 2019. We still would have 13 months til election.

There is some (though not much) room to move.

I think she's obsessed with March as it then avoids the complication of the UK having to participate pointlessly, from her perspective in the 2019 Euro elections.

RTB I guess it turns though on who has the power to revoke and upon what basis? If that power is still rested with the govt I don't see that it's much of a prize?

Very much true, but the point is that the hardline approach means that if you want parliamentary involvement and want to make sure that Brexit is actioned democratically, that there is very little option but to see if that is a possibility. Nothing to loose in theory.

RTB Didn't explain it very well, I mean she wants it done, dusted and enough time so the next GE is fought on UK non brexit related issues except her success, which I'm sure she assumes she will make of it . Also even she doesn't think 2 years is going to cover it, so she needs those 13 months to keep her claws on power.

Interesting stuff on Art50 if you have a background in constitutional law but otherwise starting to look more and more like an episode from Bleak House.

Surely suggesting needing to pass the Great Repeal Bill first or considering Parliament's ability to vote to withdraw an Art 50 notification undermines the case for the underlying legislative nature of Art 50 in the first place and therefore the argument regarding the sovereignty of Parliament in invoking it?

CNN Politics ‏@CNNPolitics
Disagreements over key Cabinet appointments split Trump transition team; one source describes it as a "knife fight"

Sounds like a Tory Leadership contest.

At a meeting yesterday of EU foreign ministers BoJo stunned his counterparts by arguing in favour of the EU turning a blind eye to the Turkish government reintroducing the death penalty for its political opponents. He also wants to accelerate the process of Turkey joining the EU.

I'm so ashamed to be British.

At a meeting yesterday of EU foreign ministers BoJo stunned his counterparts by arguing in favour of the EU turning a blind eye to the Turkish government reintroducing the death penalty for its political opponents

wonder what that would look like in the UK ? Presumably we'd hang the last of the judges with the guts of the last of the Remainers ?

odysseanproject @odysseanproject < This is Dominic Cummings head of Vote Leave to you and me.
2 A dysfunctional senior civil service can improve management of hardest job since beating Nazis with 2 new crap dptmnts + turf wars? No

Robert Hutton ‏@RobDotHutton
Can't help feeling that Vote Leave didn't say that much about the "hardest job since beating Nazis" aspect of Brexit before the referendum.

Surely suggesting needing to pass the Great Repeal Bill first or considering Parliament's ability to vote to withdraw an Art 50 notification undermines the case for the underlying legislative nature of Art 50 in the first place and therefore the argument regarding the sovereignty of Parliament in invoking it?
Sorry, I'm not really following your point. Can you rephrase it slightly please?

I think they have been saying that the royal prerog does not have the power to undermine an existing act of parliament. Parliament must act to remove law.

Even having a50 approved by parliament also undermines the 1972 Act, as the point is, that if there is no deal achieved before Great Repeal Bill passed and the treaty expires this also undermines what is contained within the 1972 act even though it has not been repelled.

But I'm not sure if that is answering your point or not.

Bizarrely too, May is feeding the idea that parliament will block Brexit on the same day the shadow chancellor is openly giving support to Brexit. She is actually undermining public confidence in parliament, which feeds support for Banks agenda ultimately rather than for her...

I would take the opposite view. TM highlighting that JMD and JC will support Art 50 thus making it much much less likely that parliament will be minded to frustrate the process and thus bolstering public confidence in parliament.

TM highlighting that JMD and JC will support Art 50 thus making it much much less likely that parliament will be minded to frustrate the process and thus bolstering public confidence in parliament.

But she's not doing that though. She's not highlighting JMD and JC support. She's putting through a bill which turns around and effectively says that parliament can not be trusted.

It goes beyond a50.

I would argue that she is reasserting that it is Parliament who makes the Law (as proposed by the Government in this case) and not the Supreme Court. A "bulletproof bill" passed by a resounding majority reinforces trust in Parliament.

RTB she's putting through a bill that means she is getting on with triggering the process to leave. I disagree that this needs any agreement since the referendum result provided the mandate and the judgement did not require anything more than a notification/simple bill, there was no requirement for details of what form the exit would take, for the plain reason that these cannot be given before negotiations begin.

How about I agree with both your latest posts.