Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

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

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 11/11/2016 21:26

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
lalalonglegs · 11/11/2016 23:31

We all live in hope, Melassa, it would be great to think that our politicians might just do the sensible thing, never mind the right thing in abandoning this nonsense.

Once again, thanks very much to Red for her excellent summary and providing us with one little haven of sanity in the past few months Flowers Wine.

TuckersBadLuck · 12/11/2016 00:12

Can somebody explain Austria to me please?

IIRC it can't have been more than a year ago that they were in a situation where it looked like they were being taken over by the hard right.

I noticed on a 'nationalism' map that somebody linked to the other day that they're considered one of the least nationalist countries in Europe though.

I don't follow Austrian politics. Did something happen or is my memory playing up?

Peregrina · 12/11/2016 06:21

I know that there won't be a Referendum on the NHS. I said it just to highlight how complex decisions can't be put to a binary choice, and because it was deliberately dragged into the EU referendum, when how and on what we finance the NHS has never been anything to do with the EU.

Many people would pay more tax if they knew it was going direct to the NHS, but if it were to be put forward as a binary choice it would still be ducking the issues which Stripey highlights. We do need a debate on this, rather than the piecemeal selling off of chunks of it. However, this is a Referendum thread so this isn't really the place to debate what should happen to the NHS.

Motheroffourdragons · 12/11/2016 06:50

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on behalf of the poster.

mathanxiety · 12/11/2016 07:27

Place marking.

Mistigri · 12/11/2016 07:36

There won't be a referendum on more money for the NHS.

There already had been. Regarding stripey's comment about rationing, the NHS already uses rationing: that's ultimately what NICE is for.

The problem with this argument is that there comes a point - and the UK is now way past this point - where cutting funding to certain areas makes little financial sense. If you cut care services and primary care for older people, they will destroy your hospital system, which is what is happening to the NHS.

So who is going to bear the burden of rationing? Young people with rare, expensive diseases? People with chronic illness? Preventative care? If you severely ration care to younger people (and it would need to be severe rationing, because healthcare spending is heavily biased towards the old) then good luck with asking them to pay for it. (This was the obamacare dilemma: you HAVE to make young, healthy people pay otherwise the whole spreading-the-burden idea doesn't work.)

Never forget that with the NHS you get decent healthcare on the cheap. Very cheap, compared to other comparably universal healthcare systems such as those in France and Germany.

BlueEyeshadow · 12/11/2016 08:04

Thanks for the thread and great OP Red

Unicornsarelovely · 12/11/2016 08:08

I saw yesterday that Liverpool city council is holding a referendum to increase council tax by 10% to cover their increasing care bill. It would be interesting to see the outcome if this - if successful a fair few other areas could follow which would be a blow to the low tax tories.

WifeofDarth · 12/11/2016 09:13

Another one signing in. Thanks again Red.
Anyone seen this www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/12/mother-refused-free-parking-at-tesco-due-to-baby-formula-purchase
Very strange quote from the Dept of Health blaming the EU for this. Not sure if it's EU law or not but it definitely comes from a global initiative to restrict the marketing practices of baby milk that the UK signed up to.
So why is the DoH pushing out misinformation about the EU, and where is it going to come from next? I find that very worrying

Unicornsarelovely · 12/11/2016 09:23

I saw that and all for the sake of a parking voucher worth £2 or so! Especially when she could have bought nappies, or wipes or anything else baby related Hmm.

merrymouse · 12/11/2016 10:00

I saw that too - all over the front page of the Daily Mail.

Apparently from the guardian

relevant EU regulation bans “any …promotional device to induce sales of infant formula directly to the consumer at the retail level, such as … discount coupons”

I don't see how that applies to a general refund of car parking designed to encourage consumers to shop in that branch of Tesco.

It sounds to me as though Tesco are applying this rule over zealously, and I also suspect the regulations on marketing formula would have been introduced without the EU.

StripeyMonkey1 · 12/11/2016 10:11

Misti/Peregrina - I'll stop the derail on the NHS as this is an EU referendum thread as many have pointed out. Misti - broadly I agree with you and I think the categories you mentioned, such as those with expensive chronic illnesses, absolutely need full NHS cover. I'm no advocate of cutting funds. I simply think the conversation is framed in too simplistic a way at the moment. And we know that simplistic yes/no questions do not give full answers to difficult and complex questions... to return to the subject in question.

StripeyMonkey1 · 12/11/2016 10:13

Peregrina - also I was agreeing with you that "democratic will of the people" appears to be valuable only in certain contexts - sorry if that didn't come across Wink

amaravatti · 12/11/2016 10:22

On Austria Tuckers

www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-election-vanderbellen-idUSKBN1361YA?il=0

Former Greens leader Alexander Van der Bellen narrowly won a run-off in May against the anti-immigration Freedom Party's Norbert Hofer, but the result was overturned in July. The re-run is due to be held on Dec. 4.

Events since the original run-off, including Britain's vote to exit the European Union, appear to have had little effect on the race for Austria's largely ceremonial presidency, with polls giving a slight edge to Hofer but within the margin of error.

amaravatti · 12/11/2016 10:35

As Brexit and Trumpton were propelled by misinformation, some thoughts here,
www.opendemocracy.net/martin-moore/news-publishers-if-you-re-worried-about-facebook-stop-colluding-with-it
It was Facebook’s decision to give equivalent status to the New York Times and WorldPoliticus, but it was the decision of reputable news organisations to jump on board Facebook Instant Articles, and to broadcast live through Facebook, and to use Facebook as a major distribution platform.

Is it too late to reverse it? Maybe. And the power to change the newsfeed lies with Facebook. But there are things these news publishers could do. They could stop loading content straight onto Facebook’s platform via Instant Articles. They could stop using Facebook as one of their main means of distribution. And they could start figuring out how better to reach people in a way that demonstrates the provenance and credibility of their journalism.

Otherwise they won’t just be undermining their own authority, they will be colluding in the mass distribution of misinformation.

TheNorthRemembers · 12/11/2016 10:55

How does parking work in that Tesco?

I hope the delay in Austria will favour the green candidate. Hopefully memories of the 2015 refugee crisis would have faded a bit. It is easy for us to criticise heartless Central Europeans when we agonise over a bus load of refugees and they had hundreds of thousands crossing their borders.

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 11:04

I hope the delay in Austria will favour the green candidate.

Polling looks like its going the other way. But you know. Polling isn't what it used to be.

OP posts:
Peregrina · 12/11/2016 11:16

The Department of Health said the relevant rules are enshrined in UK law as a result of an EU regulation on the sale of baby formula. “These rules are currently in place because of EU law,” a spokesman said. “But our Great Repeal Bill means that when we leave the EU, laws such as these will be debated and controlled by the UK Parliament.” (Extract from the Guardian article.)

Which sounds like a blatant piece of propaganda. As people say, it will almost certainly have come about as a result of international pressures, as will be found it this 'Great Repeal Bill' comes about, and this one will not be a feature.

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 12:27

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
EU warns May over Trump - divide over the US elections grows as Germany warns U.K. not to assume Trump will help us

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5d3906b2-a85c-11e6-b67a-719634415da0
EU warns May over Trump
‘Delusional’ Britain will be punished if it seeks trade deal with the president-elect

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Boris Johnson unlikely turn attend tomorrow's EU "crisis" summit on Trump, disapproving of the whole thing. Our p1

^The split in approach deepened further yesterday when it appeated that Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, was unlikely to attend a European "crisis" meeting tomorrow to discuss the US election, after saying the EU was engaging in a "whinge-o-rama". The Foreign Office said that a final decision had not been made."

Remember Johnson is still a US citizen...

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Hours after Trump election, a note on the dangers his election posed for NATO went round Whitehall. From our p1

Privately Britain is nervous of the military impact of Mr Trump's election. The Times understands that within hours of his victory a note was circulated in Whitehall about his attitude to Nato. It urged minister to do all they could to stop him disengaging from the alliance, even if it meant persuading member states to pay for defence

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Nightmare for Theresa: Trump cd offer instant US-UK trade deal (as he rips up TTIP) say two Brits who know him best

Mr Trump is likely to offer Britain the chance to do a quick free-trade deal with the United States, according to two Britons who know his team best. Arron Banks, the UKIP backer who travelled to the US, said that Britain "will be first in line" and "they won't care" that the EU prohibits negotiations until Britain has formally left.

Richard Tice, the co-chairman of Leave means Leave, who also travelled with Nigel Farage to the Republican convention, said: "Senior Republicans said we would be at the front of the queue. The point is to get a limited trade deal done in 2017 which makes everyone optimistic and enhances our negotiating strategy. If Britain turned them down, Trump's team will say 'great shame we wanted you at the front of the queue, not half way back'"

Sam Coates Times ‏@SamCoatesTimes
Would Theresa risk angering Trump by turning down an early trade deal offer - or enrage EU by engaging. No10 must pray issue doesn't arise

Thought on this:

  1. Just WHO is now in charge of British foreign policy? I am seriously starting to wonder. This could end up being a real power struggle between Farage and May at this rate. May is in danger of becoming the British equivalent of Germany's Papen and being 'irrelevant' herself.

  2. Just how much can the UK be held to ransom by the US? Its not ok if its the EU but is it ok if its the US? How will the media react to signs of this. Especially given the public horror of Trump's election. As part of this will we see a significant shift in public opinion / normalisation of Trump as our friend.

  3. Can Theresa May action a deal with the US? The Supreme Court ruling has implications for this as the High Court laid out the role and actions of the royal prerogative on international treaties and how that interacts with parliament.

It said that the royal prerogative has the power to make deals on the international plan BUT this does not come into effect in domestic law until parliament has ratified it.

So there is one of these gaps in cause in effect.

This now makes the outcome of the hearing doubly important in protecting parliamentary sovereignty.

  1. I'm going a bit of memory here as I can find the references to it, but when a50 was first discussed the question of whether we could be kicked out of the EU for not triggering a50 arose. The answer was that no they couldn't as we'd done nothing wrong. I think there was a suggestion though to do with article 4, which reads:

Article 4
3. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

When Merkel and Hollande congratulated Trump they were very qualified in their responses and stressed equality. Here's why:

Article 21
1. The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations which share the principles referred to in the first subparagraph. It shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.

Can you see why a) Trump is a problem in this context and b) a trade deal with Trumpland by the UK whilst we are still a member of the EU is a complete no no as it might breach EU rules on two counts?

So doing such a deal could create a situation where the EU could, in theory, just kick us out or suspend us without even triggering a50.

Here lies another cliff edge.

Of course, May refusing to do a deal because we are still a member of the EU might well go down like a lead balloon with the press and public who do not think we should still be following EU rules.

This ALL plays beautifully to Farage. He has every reason to push for a US deal it serves to drive a wedge between the EU and the UK and weakens May's own position allowing him to dominate the agenda and get what he, and he alone wants - whilst dressing it up as 'the will of the people' as obviously when they ticked that box on the 23rd June it read, appoint Farage PM and start talks to join the USA.

This really is a bit of a pickle.

We are trying to avoid the cliff whilst Farage is intent on pushing it off it. Its precarious.

Meanwhile in other news:
LEGO ‏@LEGO_Group
@StopFundingHate We have finished the agreement with The Daily Mail and are not planning any future promotional activity with the newspaper

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 12:30

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uk-nafta-brexit-trump-newt-grinrich-usa-canada-mexico-conservative-mp-dnald-theresa-may-a7412791.html
UK could become part of new trade area with the US, Canada and Mexico after Brexit
Conservative MPs describe prospect of joining a new version of Naftaas an 'opportunity'

OP posts:
MagikarpetRide · 12/11/2016 12:30

I laughed when I read about the Tesco infant formula gate. They've taken nearly 5 months to find an eu regulation that directly affects an ordinary person. And it's one that, given how much they spend on breastfeeding promotion, isn't likely to be repealed anyway. Nor was it probably put in place unwillingly.

Peregrina · 12/11/2016 12:52

Just how much can the UK be held to ransom by the US? Its not ok if its the EU but is it ok if its the US?

The media will love it - the anglo-sphere - it's all shades of Empire again, the colony which got away. Forgetting that the US now is a very different animal from those original colonies who broke away.

UK could become part of new trade area with the US, Canada and Mexico after Brexit. Conservative MPs describe prospect of joining a new version of Naftaas an 'opportunity'.

'Anglosphere' and Empire again. Unions are only bad when it's those nasty frogs and krauts. (Forgetting for the moment that the Americans are also called the Yanks, in not necessarily flattering terms.)

NotDavidTennant · 12/11/2016 13:05

NAFTA is going to be snarled up in re-negotiations for years I would have thought, or if Trump gets impatient simply binned. A straight bilateral US-UK trade deal would seem like a more straight-forward option.

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 13:08

I didn't think Brexit could get more depressing.

There's a video been shared on the pub thread.
Just.
Fucking Hell.

OP posts:
NotDavidTennant · 12/11/2016 13:09

Also, as far as I can see the only basis for that story is that Newt Gingrich may be joining Trump's cabinet, and umpteen years ago he was keen on the UK joining NAFTA. That's it.

For now, it's just wishful thinking on the part of Tory Atlanticists.