Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 22:28

I still think that's cutting your nose off to spite your face.

It also had to be said that Johnson personally has something of a conflict of interest here with regard to his citizenship. And yes, it is relevant.

OP posts:
StripeyMonkey1 · 12/11/2016 22:29

Yes, Boris should have voiced his opposition to the meeting publicly, and then have gone anyway.

We need time to see how all this is going to play out and to get the best possible deal for our country.

Important things we don't know yet are

  • what Trump will actually do as president of the US. What will UK/US relations look like?
  • who will win the French elections? Might it even be Marine le Pen?
  • likewise, will Merkel still be prime minister of Germany after next year?

We should not be rushing to get everything done now and cutting our options. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot as a country if we were to do this. Triggering article 50 in March is insane.

Boredofbrexit · 12/11/2016 22:31

Of course, Russian American domiciled in U.K. Actually when you think of it that way, maybe he's scared to attend!!!!!

mathanxiety · 12/11/2016 22:39

I agree with the comment on TM = dictator. I think she seeks revolution.

Peregrina · 12/11/2016 22:42

I'd offer that leavers fear that with the passage of time will come opportunity to kick leaving into the long grass.

If the case is strong enough then that should not happen. There are arguments for trying to reform the EU, and I wonder just how far the UK has tried to do so? My impression is that it's been years of whinging about wanting special deals, instead of saying "we are in let's make it work."

weavingawickerbasket · 12/11/2016 22:45

"The royal charters guarantee that scientists are independent of the Government and can carry out whatever research they choose. They are now concerned they will lose that freedom and might be subjected to political interference.^This is HUGE."

Red What are the reasons TM is stating for opposing seven of Her Majesty’s royal charters? It sounds grim. The 'Western world' is starting to feel increasingly unrecognisable to me. It's certainly not getting better. To think that just a few months ago Europe scolded Erdogan for meddling with the judiciary and with the eduction sector. If royal charters are challenged and independent research curbed, is it inconceivable that at some point only government vetted British academics will permitted to teach? Confused

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 22:55

Weaving, I've not seen anything past that article at the moment. I need to have a good look.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/527803/bis-16-291-ukri-case-for-creation.pdf
This is the government document for it. Its actually dated June so in fact looks pre-May. I don't know how it has progressed from there. I will try and find out about a bit more.

But yeah... what you just said.

I wonder if the Queen would step in. Not beyond the realms of possibility at a time when our constitution is being tested in other areas anyway. It starts to become a question of what is there to loose further?

OP posts:
Peregrina · 12/11/2016 22:57

What are the reasons TM is stating for opposing seven of Her Majesty’s royal charters?

What are TM's reasons for doing anything? What was her reason for rushing out a green paper proposing more grammar schools? Why pick an unnecessary fight? It wasn't in the Conservative manifesto, and the way she is carrying on, she does not exactly appear to be a good advert for the education provided, IMO. (I am speaking as a product of virtually the same education, girls grammar turned co-ed comp part way through.)

I am seriously beginning to question her sanity. As for her supine party, apart from one or two like Ken Clarke, and the MP who resigned on principle a couple of weeks ago, I have never seen such a spineless bunch.

weavingawickerbasket · 12/11/2016 23:01

"I wonder if the Queen would step in."

Dh and are are watching The Crown right now.

The episode we saw tonight was about Queen Elizabeth gently suggesting that Churchill resigns as prime minister during the fog crisis in 195?? Dicky, her advisor explained that it is the sovereign's pejorative to advise, hint and make suggestions to cabinet... I was surprised about this as I thought the monarch had to remain neutral in all ways, but evidently he can express an opinion. Watching the programme I was wondering if the Queen had hinted at TM to go ahead with brexit. Not sure now.

weavingawickerbasket · 12/11/2016 23:04

*she (!)
I can't believe i jus typed the word 'sovereign' and subconsciously referred to said sovereign as 'he' knowing full well ours is female Confused

RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 23:37

Here we go:

Oral Evidence to Lords Science and Technology Select Committee data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/role-and-priorities-of-ukri-interim-chair/oral/41153.html

Q56 Matt Warman: On the interdisciplinary side of this stuff, UKRI will hold the global challenges research fund. How is that fund going to interact with the different research councils? Who is ultimately in charge?

Rebecca Endean: We have allocated the global challenges research fund to all the individual councils. One of the issues we have with the current structure of the research councils is that they can act only in accordance with their own royal charter, which means that they can spend money only in relation to the specific disciplines they can achieve. In the Bill, hopefully, we have built in a little more flexibility; for example, UKRI could hold the global challenges fund centrally, if that is what the new board and new CEO want to do, but we have also made sure there is a provision that will enable one council to act on behalf of others, so you could charge one of the individual councils to deliver multidisciplinary funds. You could do the same thing as we do at the moment, which is that we allocate it to the councils and they work together to do joint calls. The Bill gives us more flexibility than we have at the moment in terms of how we structure those things.

^Q57 Matt Warman: Do you anticipate UKRI being the holder of that fund?
Rebecca Endean: As currently, we would expect the vast majority of the global challenges fund to be disbursed through the research councils. We also took a chunk of it and gave it to HEFCE for quality-related funding, so that kept the balance between the two sides of the dual funding system. We would normally also look to the academies and the learned societies, because they produce very useful programmes, especially early career fellowships and work with other countries. We would still want them to be involved with the global challenges fund, even though the primary driver and the primary holder of it would be UKRI.^

Q58 Chair: Can I go back to the dual support funding stream? The Higher Education and Research Bill stipulates a reasonable balance of funding. Will you be reporting on the spending within UKRI on each element of funding? Will that be transparent?

Sir John Kingman: I am not completely sure I understand your question. We will advise Ministers on the balance. Ministers are required to take our advice—sorry, I misspoke. I should have said that Ministers are required to listen to our advice—they are not required to agree with it—on the balance. That is a new principle, but I am not certain whether that answers your question.

Q59 Chair: How will you be reporting on it? Do you just tell Ministers?

Sir John Kingman: The dual support system is an incredibly important part of the structure, because it means we are not totally dependent on the wisdom of the funding bodies as to what are the best things to fund. The institutions have a significant body of funding and can choose how to spend it. That has important implications for the sustainability of the system as a whole. We will want to report on the state of the balance. We will be very interested in sustainability. When I was involved in science funding years ago, I remember that the biggest single issue was that the whole sector was overtrading; essentially, it was doing more research than it could afford, and the consequence was that we were badly running down the infrastructure of the system. At the time, we had to gather a lot of facts on the state of buildings and so on. UKRI will be the holder of that analysis; it will be the conscience of that analysis and, partly because I have been through that experience, I will be very concerned that we do it properly.

Q60 Chair: Do you worry that incorporating Research England into a UK body could result in a disproportionate bias towards the English part of the remit?

Sir John Kingman: No, I do not. I think I am correct in saying that at the moment Scottish research institutions are net beneficiaries compared with English ones of UK research funding, because they are very good, and that is fine. As I said to your colleague earlier, if UKRI as a UK institution lost the confidence of the devolved Administrations about the objectivity we were bringing to our decision making, I would expect us to be rightly criticised.

So they don't think the system is sustainable, they think it is doing too much research which is duplicated and is over all inefficient. They think it would enable research to overlap boundaries from areas which are currently restricted due to funding only being allowed in narrow areas under specific Royal Charters.

No where in the stuff on the parliament website seems to make a reference to the removal of the Royal Charter (or indeed reference to a new one on the new body).

The BMJ is carrying an article on the subject but its all firewalled apart from a couple of paragraphs which include:
But other eminent UK scientists argued that the bill—which is currently being debated in parliament—would actually give UK science a greater influence on government and allow it to push for an increase on the “pitiful” amount of funding it currently received.

There is this article on the Bill's progress from earlier this week:
blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2016/11/09/what-next-for-the-higher-education-and-research-bill/
In it, it states:
The Royal Society had called for clarification of the Secretary of State’s “power to direct” UKRI’s expenditure. A government amendment to the Bill provided some clarifications: this power could only be used where recipients of hypothecated funding aren’t complying with the conditions of funding eligibility. Jo Johnson stated that this power mirrors existing ones, was rarely used in practice, and was necessary to deal swiftly with cases of financial mismanagement.

The Society had called for the Bill to include a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the research community on any proposal for major Research Council reform. At the moment, the Bill states that any changes to the name, function or existence of Research Councils would require a debate in parliament and would have to be approved through a vote in both Houses. Jo Johnson confirmed that the government’s intention would be to consult the research community as part of this process, but declined to include a specific requirement for consultation on the face of the Bill.

There is a debate on the 18th October which says:
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-18/debates/b54e1c1b-122b-4e64-a1cb-3700bda002ae/HigherEducationAndResearchBill(ThirteenthSitting)

The royal charters of the research councils protected such fundamental research by requiring that basic strategic and applied research were all funded, hence their use in our amendments, but there is no commitment as such in the Bill, hence the suggestion that these amendments should be moved to include a commitment to supporting those issues.

The absence of a Royal Charter is an important omission though and one for which I can see no reasoning behind. Maybe I am missing something, but it really does leave science very much exposed to political interference.

No one seems to be carrying the story apart from the Mirror though. There really is very little out there about it and it is hugely important especially in a Brexit context.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 12/11/2016 23:47

Pernille Rudlin ‏@pernilleru
Excellent reasonable leader from @TheEconomist particularly re don't show your hand in negotiations stupidity

The other reason the government gives for secrecy is that it doesn't want to show its hand in the negotiations: if Britain is to outwit its foes in Brussels it must keep its strategy under wraps. Parliamentary debate would supposedly give the game away. Yet this misunderstands the task ahead. Negotiating Brexit is not like selling a second-hand car with a dodgy secret under the bonnet. The breaking up of a 40 year legal, political and economic union, and the trade talks that will follow should be done in the open. In America Congress demands a detailed outline of the president's plans before granting him permission to negotiate trade deals that it promise not to amend. In the EU Brussels is notoriously leaky. Besides, negotiations there do not rely on secret fall-back positions, but a gradual fumbling toward compromise.

Thought that might answer, at least in part, how trade deals work in the US, in answer to comment upthread, whilst also being relevant to Brexit. I just stumbled on it and though it worth posting.

OP posts:
BoredOfBrexit · 12/11/2016 23:57

Article on rt.com (yes, I know) Soros backed groups involved in anti trump protests. Worth a read.

SwedishEdith · 12/11/2016 23:59

Farage, Banks, Wigmore and Kassam all meeting Trump in New York now.

BoredOfBrexit · 13/11/2016 00:02

Was thinking I have not heard anything from Blair re Trumps election - has anyone?

weavingawickerbasket · 13/11/2016 00:07

"Farage, Banks, Wigmore and Kassam all meeting Trump in New York now."
FFS

weavingawickerbasket · 13/11/2016 00:09

no words

Westministenders. Boris worries about the land of his birth and simply wonders, what the hell next!?
SwedishEdith · 13/11/2016 00:14

Horrible aren't they? Coincidentally, weaving, Sarah Wollaston retweeted one of the photos
'Sarah Wollaston MP ‏@sarahwollaston 27m27 minutes ago
Sarah Wollaston MP Retweeted Nigel Farage
News from the locker room'

weavingawickerbasket · 13/11/2016 00:19

that picture in the middle of the 'triptik' is sure photoshopped, right?

weavingawickerbasket · 13/11/2016 00:19

*surely

SwedishEdith · 13/11/2016 00:20

The Magnificent Six

Westministenders. Boris worries about the land of his birth and simply wonders, what the hell next!?
weavingawickerbasket · 13/11/2016 00:27

I regret viewing these pics at this time of night. The stuff of nightmares. The only one missing is Ali G .

BoredOfBrexit · 13/11/2016 00:37

Weaving. Love thatGrin.

BoredOfBrexit · 13/11/2016 00:43

Seriously, and as a leaver, I think TMs days are numbered.

merrymouse · 13/11/2016 02:07

Re: pictures, yes Trump is president elect, but he lost the popular vote, and Americans are demonstrating every night. However, he currently draws his power from the fact that America, as a civilised country must respect it's own laws and constitution.

So far he has attempted to be statesman like and conciliatory.

However, UKIP do not have any elected power in the UK. Those pictures can't be anything but deliberate but that is not a conciliatory or respectful gesture to the UK.

It's deliberately showing the (sort of) elected government of the U.K. where it stands.

As Rachel Johnson said of Brexit on the 'last leg', it's a shit show.