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. For God sake Boris, is that the best plan you can come up with?

967 replies

RedToothBrush · 30/11/2016 10:25

Its now five months from the referendum. Plans for leaving should be well advanced by now. Shouldn't they? We should have got past this ridiculous idea that we can have our cake and eat it. Yet the plan is a secret, well apart from when the EU leak things to the press or junior ministers let their underlings carry their notes for them.

A photo taken this week outside Downing Street, suggests that the ‘Have Cake And Eat It’ Plan really is seriously being considered by the government. This plan is 'clear' it has been spelt out many times by the government and yet no one has a fucking clue what it is apart from a car crash of utter nonsense, wishful thinking and fingers in the ears. Its so clear that Theresa May has admitted she is losing sleep over it, and has faith that God will steer us through via her moral compass (which I suspect to have been left on top of a rather large electro-magnet given her track record so far)

Still this, however, seems to be better than the ‘Fuck You’ Plan (or should that be 'Fuck EU') that is official UKIP policy and is to ignore a50 and leave the EU unilaterally. And possibly illegally, so no one will ever want to make an international agreement with the UK.

And this, is still at least better than ‘We Have No’ Plan that Labour have.

Other suggested plans are:
The ‘Lets Leave the UK and Screw Ourselves Another Way’ Plan as supported by the SNP which the majority of Scots seem to be against
The Welsh are quietly cultivating the ‘Shh Nobody Mention We Voted Leave But Are Now Going to be Difficult’ Plan as they suddenly realise they are about to be shafted financially and might lose the Welsh Assembly in the process.
NI might still go down the ‘Lets Unify Ireland and Start Another Chapter in Violence’ Plan though, the alternative might well be the ‘Lets Stay in the Union and Start Another Chapter in Violence’ Plan anyway, so they are screwed due to the immense thoughtfulness of the English.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems are all about the ‘Lets Just Not Do This and Instead Risk a Revolt’ Plan.

If anyone does actually have a coherent plan, then there are lots of parties who would love to hear from you.

Lets be honest about the secrecy though. Its not about the EU knowing our plans. They already know what all our options are, or more to the point, aren't. The government want to keep it out of parliament because they want to control it, and because they don't want the press to know. They do not want transparency, as they are so weak and so fearful that they will be shown up for what they are, even when there is no opposition.

So we are screwed. Unless somehow someone comes to their senses and puts it to the EU that a50 isn’t fit for purpose and that a new treaty must be done to respect the democratic will of the people and the EU let us go down that route (Hey didn’t I say that months ago?).

Tomorrow we have the completely pointless and costly vanity by-election for Zac Goldsmith. The referendum about Heathrow and not at all about Brexit. Latest betting 2/7 on Goldsmith and 5/2 on the Lib Dems. I think Goldsmith with his good looks will just sneak it, unless turnout is really low. But it will be close.

Sunday we have the Italian Referendum, which some have suggested would the Italian Bank Melt Down (and start of a new Eurozone Crisis) though many here say this fear is massively over stated through Brexit tinted spectacles. Sunday also sees the Austria Presidential Election Re-run with the Far Right Candidate currently looking like he has the slight edge.

A50. The Supreme Court case starts next week. Scotland say they have a veto. Wales say they are worried about the Devolution Problem. NI still might have their defeat in the High Court overturned and there is the Good Friday agreement. The Supreme Court might insist that the Great Repeal Act might need to be passed before we can invoke a50. And the plan if the government lose is merely a 3 line Bill which they want to rush through in 5 days no one would dare defy. Well except the Lib Dems are already saying they want amendments to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and what is the point of the Lords if they don't. So there is a fair old chance that if the government loses given the wider scope of the Supreme Court Case, a 3 line bill simply won’t cover everything it needs to.

We still don’t know if the ECJ might get involved. It seems the Republic of Ireland, might have a say in that too. An ECJ referral would mean a 4 to 8 month delay, even with the sensitivity and the importance of the case.

Don’t forget if you were planning on going/worried about it the 100,000 March on the Supreme Court is off. Due to not being planned in the first place although Leave.Eu will tell you different.

Speaking of the Great Repeal Act. This is supposed to be started in May. This would give it less than two years to be ready before we left the EU. Yet it has a load of hurdles to leap in its sheer complexity, and there is a real danger this will not be long enough. If not done correctly it has the potential to mean the legal system would “fall over”. This is basically the legal equivalent of when you mean yourself in a time travelling sci-fi creating a paradox which threatens the very existence of time itself.

A127. Another treaty, another challenge? Possibly, but maybe only a way to bargain for the EEA rather than something more. But it just shows the legal headache Brexit is. We still could end up in the ECJ on any number of other issues – not just a50. You know this legal headache the government is ignoring by having no lawyer in the Brexit Cabinet, and UKIP are just plan delusional about.

Anyway UKIP have a new leader. Paul Nuttalls. (sic – see Stuart Lee). He wants to privatise the NHS though he denies having said it either on camera or on his blog. Everytime anyone says ‘Paul Nuttalls to you, remember to say ‘Oh the one who wants to privatise the NHS?’ Just to make sure everyone is away that he wants to privatise the NHS. Repeat Ad nauseam. Hell this is what Labour are going to be doing, as they are bloody terrified. Why? Simple. He will, of course, be hugely popular despite this cos he’s got the right accent and says the ‘right things’. By ‘right things’ I mean cos he spouts utter bollocks. Which probably means he’s also electable seeing as utter bollocks is now political currency. Plus Labour are rather lacking in any policies, so utter bollocks policies easily fill the void.

Talking of utter bollocks, I haven’t mentioned Trump yet. The Greens have requested a recount and are supported by the Democrats, though they say they haven’t found anything dubious themselves yet. Trump says it’s a scam. Goebbels once said when telling the Big Lie accuse your opposition of what you are guilty of yourself, so I'm not betting either way given that is the political strategy Trump has employed with gusto. I dread to think of the mess that would cause if the recount came out in favour of Clinton.

So another couple of fun weeks on the cards, which will have you reaching for the gin and wondering if there is anyone left alive who actually gives a toss about what happens to real people and isn’t prepared to commit economic and democratic suicide.

Only another month to go before the 2016 Repeal Act comes into force. 2017 looks smashing.
Shamelessly stolen from David Allen Green

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
SilentBatperson · 07/12/2016 18:08

Anyone following matters in Parliament? Jacob Rees Mogg really is a piece of shit.

merrymouse · 07/12/2016 18:09

I think some sure start centres also ended up providing the majority of their services to a market outside their original target demographic.

whatwouldrondo · 07/12/2016 18:16

Quite a few Cof E diocese advise their Parishes to serve their local communities but few take any notice given the pressure the other way from pushy parents and the potential to fill the pews and the coffers

RedToothBrush · 07/12/2016 18:35

a50 today. Main points (I've not been following this afternoon I'm afraid).

Pannick got quite a grilling this morning by the judges over the point that the referendum was not binding. This is largely because this is the additional point to the government's appeal.

Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
No sign so far in this appeal that the case will be referred to ECJ for any clarification.
So that amusing possibility now looks unlikely.

Unless someone else does it at later date. (Not impossible).

For NI - Scoffield

Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
Scoffield deals with Govt (dismissive) contention that foreign affairs reserved to Westminster: Not correct starting point as matter of law.

Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
And showing this with impressive detail in Northern Irish context. This is good and potentially significant.

Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
Lavery QC: I go further than Scoffield.

Transfer of sovereignty by Good Friday Agreement & s.1 N Ireland Act.

Plmnt no longer sovereign.

Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
Interesting submission - about as fundamental a challenge as you could make.

This NI challenge is not just seeking to pull the carpet from under the government on A50; it is trying to remove the floor itself.

Personally I agree with this position and have done since before the referendum. In essence NI belongs to the people of NI whether they consider themselves Irish or British though it is part of the UK technically. This was the point of the Good Friday Agreement. This was the only way that pro-Irish groups could agree to it. This was the only way that pro-British groups could agree to it. By effectively making it neutral politically with regard to Westminster and Dublin by having its own parliament that is directly answerable to the people living there only.

This was why the question of NI was always so crucial to the EU Referendum as a vote that went against how NI voted would have massive constitutional implications and would put a bomb (if you pardon the wording though deliberate and appropriate) under the whole devolved arrangement.

And everyone played it down or out right ignored it or simply didn't even know about it. Which just makes me fucking angry

The implication of this?:

Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
In essence - prerogative not enough; Act of Parliament not enough; the specific consent of Northern Ireland required.

Joshua Rozenberg ‏@JoshuaRozenberg
An LCM (legislative consent motion) is needed from the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr Scoffield argues.

And of course, this is going to be something of a problem...

Faisal Islam points out that the government decision to appeal could prove to be a car crash for the government:

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
In terms of what went on at Supreme Court today - 3 potential cans of worms for A50 timing, only arise because of the decision to appeal.
Firstly an extensive discussion of what type of legislation is enough for Article 50... from motion to one liner to Great Repeal Bill
..that explicitly acknowledged by David Davis in Commons debate "waiting for outcome to get precisely right what this House has to do"
Then the argument around the need for Legislative Consent Motions in Belfast and Edinburgh for Article 50 .. continues tomorrow
... and subtle reference from Mance "is that for us?" Re interpretation of "constitutional requirements" in A50 text. Slim path to ECJ

Pretty much all of this could have been avoided if the government had written the EU Referendum Act properly...

OP posts:
Castelnaumansions · 07/12/2016 19:27

Brilliant, thanks red. Interesting that there were so many reluctant leavers and with you on the NI 'fudge'. On 'politicians not listening to people like me'
Worrying in every way that: that they think politics is about 'listening'; but the acknowledgement that with the decimation and demonisation of unions, councils, LEAs, people feel un represented.
btw, bad and sad that the lovely Faisal Islam has to put up with islamophobic malarkey on his twitter, it's the twitterocracy, I know.
Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam

@AlexSalmond says 400 voting with the Conservative/Labour motion - 90 against - SNP, LibDems plus some Labour and ... Ken Clarke
Watching Sleaford.

Castelnaumansions · 07/12/2016 19:34

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam

461 - 89 to amend the motion - 22 Labour MPs voted against the amendment. And one Conservative Ken Clarke.
thanks jezzer Sad

BigChocFrenzy · 07/12/2016 19:51

Great summary, Red

SilentBatPerson You have totally summed up Moggy.
He has lain down among fleas so long, he needs a flea collar.

BigChocFrenzy · 07/12/2016 20:06

As long as Labour under Jezza continue to be an ineffective Official opposition. TM can pander 100% to her rightwing wrt Brexit, including their wishes to further cut welfare.
Benefit cap Mk III ? WTC cuts ?

Sleaford & North Hykeham has been a Tory safe seat for decades.

Heavily Brexit, but I presume mainly the prosperous voters who approve of benefit caps and cutting back the Welfare State.
A high % of retired too, who don't have to worry about workers' rights. They probably support the triple lock, that's not welfare, oh no - they "worked hard for their pensions"
Anyone "Left Behind" and desperate for change wrt inequality and economic policy, would be unlikely / naive to keep voting Tory.

So, what to look out for:

  • Will Labour lose another deposit ?
  • Will Labour votes go to Liberals and / or UKIP and in what %s ?
  • Will Liberals gain some Tory Remainer votes ?
  • Will UKIP gain some Tory rightwing votes ? from those angry that Article 50 - even Brexit ! - hasn't happened yet
  • The % change in the Tory vote due to the sum of the above
SwedishEdith · 07/12/2016 20:50

Has this been posted yet from the New European'?

'My brawl over Brexit with Prime Minister, Theresa May'
www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/my_brawl_over_brexit_with_prime_minister_theresa_may_1_4807899?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons

If it's all true, it's bizarre! "She then told me “people point at me all the time,” " Shock

If it's all true, I'm beginning to think Theresa May isn't that bright.

MangoMoon · 07/12/2016 21:22

To be fair, I'd have found the woman slightly bizarre too - presenting TM with a clutch of pie charts & graphs which have been doing the rounds since June.
It's not like she pulled anything new or original put of the bag.

Castelnaumansions · 07/12/2016 21:35

Concerning and revealing piece Swedish Pointy fingers don't seem like a very sophisticated negotiating strategy. Maybe the leather trousers will win the UK a great deal. Hmm

iwanttoridemybicycle · 07/12/2016 21:47

Mango, what's bizarre about taking materials /papers with you? It's called being prepared. Very strange that you are quick to dismiss the lady's genuine concerns because of a pie chart?

birdybirdywoofwoof · 07/12/2016 21:55

Thanks for posting the Natcen report, Red.

I'm sure it will be dismissed because 'polls are rubbish' or because 'people from all groups equally voted brexit' but I love that kind of analysis.

MangoMoon · 07/12/2016 22:01

I agree with this analysis of the current court case:

"...What the judges should do instead is turn the case back on parliament. It rightly claims sovereignty. It can face down any government. It can demand the referendum be ignored and article 50 not be invoked. It can pass any motion and change any law. The trouble is it has lost such guts.
MPs are too spineless to act beyond the realm of the executive. When supposedly upset, they now want judges to do their work for them, to get them off the hook of badly drafted laws. The judges should tell the MPs they caused this mess. They should get themselves out of it. Case dismissed, not our problem..."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/07/supreme-court-mps-article-50-parliament?client=safari

lalalonglegs · 07/12/2016 22:11

So, if the Supreme Court decides that Parliament needs permission from Nothern Ireland in order to trigger A50 (or else GB has to somehow go it alone without Northern Ireland), how would that consent be acquired? Because, if it's just a question of getting the nod from Arlene Foster, then I can't see her putting up much of a fight despite the majority of her electorate voting Remain.

I'm absolutely loving the fact that this would have been completely avoidable if the government hadn't persisted with the appeal. Pure hubris.

lalalonglegs · 07/12/2016 22:26

God, that New European piece is really odd - why did TM invite her constituent to meet her? Did she hope to charm her round to her way of thinking when she appears to possess not even basic manners, much less charm? The finger-jabbing was nasty Shock.

Castelnaumansions · 07/12/2016 22:41

'MPs are too spineless' fair point, we do need an FDR or Nelson Mandela to speak truth to power right now, but.........The truth is, they're now terrified of thugs to the left and the right who are pulling their strings and directly threatening their lives in some cases. A family member is one, of very long standing. Many of the younger MPs were scared enough of their new jobs, practical issues like accommodation, offices etc before Jo Cox's murder. The 'expenses scandal' based on retrospective legislation, did for, what little respect people in this country have for public servants. Now they are like rabbits in the headlights. They are just human. Even Mrs May in her leather trousers.

Peregrina · 07/12/2016 23:34

why did TM invite her constituent to meet her?
She didn't - the constituent went to one of TM's surgeries, with some questions she wanted answers to.

We are all, in theory, able to do this with our MP, although sometimes we have to wait.

BigChocFrenzy · 07/12/2016 23:58

Judges aren't allowed to go "La la la" and put their fingers in their ears, even if a case brings them into conflict with the government of the day.

Make that especially if a case brings them into conflict with the government.

If a valid case is brought before the judges, especially by individuals against the government, then those judges are required to do their constitutional duty:
to take the case and give their legal opinion, without political bias or fear of being unpopular.

There is no constitutional requirement to save a government from embarassment because it didn't do its homework, or because party political considerations mean they want to rush something through.

Every government must act within the UK constitution and within international law.
Subject to that, if the government has a working majority on an issue, then they can pass the necessary legislation.
They need to have some ovaries and just get on with it - brains & a plan would help too.

No government should try to dodge Parliament, especially on such a crucial matter and with a totally divided country,
TM's strategy - unless she places party politics above healing those divisions - should be to show those who disagreed with Brexit that at least she intends to carry out the process itself in a fully legal & constitutional manner.

BigChocFrenzy · 08/12/2016 00:05

Alarming to hear that MPs feel physically threatened and maybe the judiciary too:
Our democracy requires both to perform their duty. If intimidation causes some to back off, maybe even to quit their jobs, then our democracy is weakened.

mathanxiety · 08/12/2016 01:36

Wrt the faith school controversy - in this case I honestly believe that the American principle of separation of church and state as it applies to schools is a system that should be looked at with a view to adoption. Faith schools do not receive any federal or state funding. Parents wishing to send their children to a faith school pay tuition fees.

mathanxiety · 08/12/2016 04:04

Wrt the bombing of Dresden and democracy - democracy came to Hamburg several decades before. Dresden wasn't the only German city reduced to rubble in WW2.

However, even though consensus on many of these values has only emerged in the last decade or so, culturally there is a yawning chasm between Russia and the U.K. compared to, for instance, France and the U.K.
France - where women were hounded on beaches because of wearing the beach equivalent of a burqa?
It is completely narcissistic of the west to do a volte face in social policy after thousands of years of doing things one way, and then expect other states to hurry up and get with the programme.

It also ignores the aftermath of seven decades of communism in the USSR and the desire to return to a state where morality is publicly valued, both personal and on a government level - morality as defined by the Orthodox Church. The demise of the Soviet Union is seen in Russia not just as the end of a very flawed economic system. It is seen in spiritual terms, with the communist system identified as criminal for its assault on organised religion and all that organised religion stood for, particularly the religious view of the individual as a creation of God answerable to God, as opposed to an insignificant member of the masses owned by the state and available for deployment in whatever way the state decreed. ('From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' - ability and needs were always defined by the state and the individual was always the property of the state).

The assertion of public and private morality is part of how Russia deals with the communist past. This is ignored or misunderstood in the secular and progressive west. Russia does indeed come at things from a different pov. Russia is in no hurry for the state to start promoting a progressive agenda if that means over-ruling the tenets of the Orthodox church in matters of personal morality because the church and its view of morality are seen as emblematic of the victimhood of the whole population under communism.

This doesn't just come down to modern values. There are also long standing social, and geographical reasons that make it advantageous for countries in Western Europe to do deals with each other and have some kind of unity.
In the aftermath of WW2 there was nothing but disgust and revulsion against Germany and Germans as individuals.
The Coal and Steel Union of the early 1950s from which sprang the EU many decades later was initiated so that no European country could use its resources to arm itself for war against its neighbours. It was a conscious political act that had nothing to do with social or geographical reasons except in the broadest possible sense that war involves geography and societies. The entire conscious impetus towards political integration in Europe was about prevention of any further war within Europe. Everyone involved had to get over their suspicions, born of bitter experience, of West Germany.

Russia will continue to act in Russia's interests, and there is no particular need for it to adopt any 'western values'. Inevitably this will lead to conflict, because that is the way the world works
There is nothing 'inevitable' about this unless you believe Russia thinks it is in its interest to invade Europe as opposed to buying expensive real estate in it or occupying the sunbeds on all the sunniest beaches.

Russia considers its values to be western in the sense of Christian and therefore enlightened. It is and always has been a 'march' society, on the borders of Asia and the Muslim south. During communism the USSR brought government sponsored enlightenment to Cuba and central Asia including Afghanistan, with universal literacy as one of the central means by which science and exposure to European Russian culture (classical music, Marxist thought, centralised economy, etc) could overcome backwardness, religion and superstition.

Far right nationalism wasn't completely eradicated by the Second World War as is blatantly obvious. Throw in the kind of economic adversity experienced by Germany between the wars and any country in Europe would be at great risk (of far right/nationalism)
You are never going to eliminate the worst instincts in human nature.
You can however make as sure as possible that a given society has institutions that are strong enough, and enough citizens who are educated enough and critical enough to make solid decisions.
By 'institutions' I mean government and legal systems, arbiters of morality such as churches, and very importantly the education system and the media.
The rise of media that answers to nobody and individuals broadcasting opinion pieces has been a salient element of society and politics especially in the last 10 years, maybe more. The fractured 'journalism' of the US has created echo chambers and contributed to the breakdown of civil discourse there, as well as the demise of common ground and assumptions almost everyone could take for granted - ultimately 'truthiness' and the post truth society.
(This is why Ireland has a Referendum Commission charged with disseminating facts in a neutral way during referendum campaigns).

.............
Thank you for the great photo and observation on Lord Sumption RTB..

blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/12/05/what-the-article-50-supreme-court-is-and-isnt-about/
Way down the comments section to this David Allen Green piece:
"The Pouca"
3 days ago
'The big issue with revocability is that it would inevitably result in a debate in late 2019 or early 2020 between Remain or Brexit - which in turn would be a referendum on the May government's competence and the honesty/dishonesty of those who campaigned for Brexit. To me it is pretty clear that this prospect fills pro-Brexit politicians and journalist/editors with a fair amount of trepidation. And it would be in reality a binary choice - Hard/Soft Brexit (depending on how the negotiations went the government would have to declare one better than the other) and Remain.

'This by the way is the obvious reason that the government agreed that the Article 50 notice is irrevocable, even though it hurts their case. It's also a demonstration of how unwise May and her minions are, because there are a lot of ways for the ECJ to end up addressing this problem, one of which will almost certainly be triggered over the next 2 years.'

Cailleach1 · 08/12/2016 04:06

Yes lala, it is would be a rather sweet nemesis, if it was deemed on foot of this appeal to the supreme court, that NI's specific consent was needed because of GFA.

Wrt threats to safety of people, MP'S, Gina Miller, there is a lot of ugliness around at the moment.

Wrt faith schools in the UK, the state itself isn't secular as it does have an official state religion. So I can't imagine the funding would ever be withdrawn from C of E school's.

merrymouse · 08/12/2016 06:42

France - where women were hounded on beaches because of wearing the beach equivalent of a burqa?

France, where they have a free press and opposition parties with a voice

The 'burqini ban' (and the burqini is nothing like a burqa) is a response to terrorism. I don't agree with it, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. Terrorism in France certainly seems to have helped le Pen, but there are people on this thread who are more able to comment on France than me. I certainly don't think France is in a position to 'bomb the hell out of' French nationals who turn to terrorism.

Russia considers its values to be western in the sense of Christian and therefore enlightened

I think that is a bit of a sweeping statement for the largest country in the world. It only makes sense if you say Russians tend to be Russian Orthodox, the Russian Orthodox Church is Christian and all Christians have western values. However, we have agreed that 'western values' are quite a recent development. It might be possible to define them as 'Christian', but that would have to be a particular version of Christianity.

could overcome backwardness, religion and superstition.

However, it's not clear whether you think religion brings enlightenment or not.

It isn't wrong for Russia to act in its own interests. I expect all countries to act in their own interests, but that does inevitably lead to disagreement. You can talk about anti Russian American propaganda as much as you like, but recent conflicts between Russia and other countries are not all a result of poor lovely Mr Putin being misunderstood.

Again, my point is that world and international relations are complicated. There are few easy solutions.

You can however make as sure as possible that a given society has institutions that are strong enough, and enough citizens who are educated enough and critical enough to make solid decisions.
By 'institutions' I mean government and legal systems, arbiters of morality such as churches, and very importantly the education system and the media.

And how would one go about doing any of that in Syria?

merrymouse · 08/12/2016 07:06

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/07/us-election-recount-halted-michigan-jill-stein

Recount stopped because Jill Stein not adversely affected by the result because she couldn't have won.

Surely the point of a recount in Michigan is to audit the result and check the accuracy of the voting process? Yes, recounts are expensive, but the point is that people trust the result. What if the election goes the other way next time?

I understand that isn't how the law seems to be framed in the US, but it is odd that it is so focused on winning or losing, not accuracy.

Swipe left for the next trending thread