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

[RedToothBrush]

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

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.

1. You would perhaps need to discuss whether the NI result was effectively legally binding. The government's position on this could be something of a problem here in this respect. It says that the overall result is legally binding. Therefore by the same logic, you would assume that the result for NI in isolation is also legally binding. This would automatically mean that an executive decision to over rule this would be completely out of the question.
2. If the result is NOT legally binding - it therefore would throw it back to the question of whether the executive can act alone and without the consent of the NI Assembly. Given that there is a vote here, there is an issue. It might not be legally binding but it very very difficult to argue that its not politically binding in the context of the Good Friday Agreement which throws power back to the will of the people of NI rather than being biased in favour of Westminster or Dublin. In this case, it would be like Leave getting 44% of the vote and then the government saying we were leaving as a result. The implications are pretty horrible.
3. Therefore everything point back to it having to get voted through by the NI Assembly. Which is pretty inconceivable in reality. This is the point at which you get a full scale constitutional crisis.

What's notable is that the High Court when considering the People's Challenge they did not tackle the issue of Scotland which is similar but different to this NI one. They decided there were sufficient grounds to rule on the other constitutional issues without ruling on the effect of the Devolved Agreement. Why?

Possibly because like the court said, there was enough there already to force the government to go through parliament which is what the case was about. However I also think that it was a wise decision to try and avoid a constitutional crisis and perhaps to allow the government to reconsider whether using an appeal was the right way to proceed (and thus avoid this possibility) and to protect the High Court, leaving it for the most senior court in the country to decide alone. Of course the government didn't do this, so this is now a realistic possibility.

Having said that, the NI case did lose on its High Court hearing in Northern Ireland so the wind is perhaps behind the government in this (and its generally felt by legal people that the NI case is stronger than the Scottish one due to the GFA rather than the Devolution Acts). That said when the High Court in London made its ruling on the English/Scottish case, it did make reference to the sister NI case stating it was not surprising it failed because it was too broad in its approach. The NI appeal (which is part of the Supreme Court hearing) is therefore much more narrow in scope and focused on its core argument and as a result it perhaps does have a much better chance of succeeding unlike the government's appeal on the English/Scottish case which was more difficult to refine because it was pretty crap in the first place restrained by what it could add/change to its arguments without fundamentally changing them and undermining their position in this way instead.

This is however, a critique of what the NI argument fails which is pretty good and easy to understand even with the legal references it contains :

Greg Callus ‏@Greg_Callus
@DghSpanishWelsh @timoconnorbl OK I'll have a shot at why I find Lavery QC's submissions so unpersuasive. Won't @ all tweets but will thread.

Happy to assume that GFA is a 'treaty' in Vienna Convention sense. Partially enacted in NIA so traveux preparatois can be used to construe per R(JS, Sir Lanka). Follow Mance in 'The Sea Empress' that statute enacting should be construed to give effect to treaty where possible

NIA [Northern Ireland Act] has constitutional status, of course. Should be 'read with' GFA (not 'read down') & I accept GFA presumes UK & Eire remain EU members

Don't think 'presumes' means much more than 'presumes' (also presumes continued existence of UK: so a NI veto over Scottish Independence?)

Also not convinced GFA, as opposed to NIA, has 'constitutional status'. In fact, I'm not sure a Treaty can have constitutional status. Still less convinced that where NIA and GFA irreconcileably conflict, that latter takes precedence. What textual or legal basis is there? Afraid I find the idea that Parliament cannot repeal one of its own Acts unarguable - even if Parliament wasn't supreme, that's just wrong. Someone compared to independence Act for the Dominions. Yet the Indian Independence Act 1947 has been amended & sections repealed since then. And even if the GFA, not the NIA, was domestically binding & superior, it scarcely makes any mention of the EU outside of the preamble.

Simply construing s.1 NIA on its terms, there is no breach. Leaving the EU doesn't mean NI no longer part of UK, so s.1 not even engaged. There'd've been a stronger s.1 NIA argument on Scottish independence, as that wd change character of UK as a state. Or monarchy abolition. Essentially, I doubt spinning a half-sentence about EU in preamble to a sort-of-treaty isn't enough to overturn all Diceyan jurisprudence.

Ultimately, UK Gvt signing GFA was thinking about NI as either belonging to UK or Eire. No-one then was contemplating UK leaving the EU. Even had they been, not for UK Gvt to give away powers of Parliament. If Parl itself intended to do so, it'd be clear or at least express.

I admire, on one level, the ingenuity of argument, but it's political wishful-thinking, not a serious assessment of what UK law actually is.

So he is saying my thoughts on this, are political belief rather than legal reality (which I get because I understand the principle and argument over whether the referendum was legally or politically binding). He says that the NIA is more important to a50 as a constitutional barrier than the GFA but since it is an act of parliament can be repealed or amended and is not set in stone.

I have seen plenty said about how Brexit will not be possible without revisiting the devolution acts. And this is precisely why the Welsh Assembly has waded into the a50 case (and general debate) despite Wales voting to leave.

Constitutionally, Brexit is therefore a real threat to the devolution acts if they have to be amended in some way to allow a50 to be triggered 'in line with our constitutional requirements'. (Effectively changing our unwritten constitution to fit in line with a50). It would make much of what Cameron said after the Scottish Ref about giving MORE power to Scotland, look absolutely shambolic and real betrayal and it would undermine the political will behind the GFA (if not its entirety) both within NI and with Ireland.

So yeah, even a win on this point for the government is a disaster, since we have got into this constitutional mess.

But the case is not just about the parts of the Union. Remember than in order to win, the government have to defeat every single argument placed whereas the claimants only have to score a win on one point to claim victory. And there are varying amounts of shitness in how the government can loss and to what degree.

A ruling that they have to go through parliament is the tame end of the spectrum. The extreme end, is the full constitutional crisis - and this is possible even if the government win! This possibility is being ignored and downplayed by government.

Its highly possible that a big loss could trigger this desire to call a GE. Possibly before March, in order to meet this deadline of the 31st March, in an attempt to widen the mandate and make it not just about the referendum as its harder for the Lords to oppose if its in a manifesto. Interesting and curiously Davis yesterday made reference to the role of parliament hinging on the decision and how this was important. This is note worthy due to the government position (and reason for the court case) being that they don't need to do this.

So yeah, Brexit = total betrayal of Wales, NI and Scotland however you cut it or spin it, and despite whoever wins at the Supreme Court and totally against the 'will of the people' in many respects. Its undemocratic on a local level which we have previously established as being essential to our national identities and country as a whole.

And the best reason as to why we should never have had a referendum in the first bloody place as it has created anti-democratic and democratic positions in direct conflict with each other. Which was predicted and raised in parliament as a concern and quietly brushed under the carpet.

Brexit will destroy the UK as we know it, one way or another. Its impossible that it won't because of this conflict.

So those people who don't like Romanians and Bulgarians - are they going to be any happier with Albanians or North Africans?

On that note, yesterday's Scottish Paper 'The National' was in trouble yesterday for its cover. The Huff Post report on it is here

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-national-newspaper-under-fire-for-enemies-of-scotland-front-page_uk_5847c20be4b07fd553ce858a?utm_hp_ref=uk&

Personally, I find it inflammatory, but very difficult to argue against.

I think what makes it unacceptable is the decision to photoshop the headshots with legal wigs. I think that in the current climate it's inappropriate to undermine the rule of law either explicitly (the Mail headline) or implicitly (the National headline).

So those people who don't like Romanians and Bulgarians - are they going to be any happier with Albanians or North Africans?

Obviously not. But it gets worse ... the further away you need to pull people from, the more you will need to pay them to cover the journey (which is one of the reasons that Poland hasn't seen an influx of UK workers. They just couldn't pay enough to cover the journey).

So we will see immigrants doing jobs locals won't for even more money.

That'll go down well ..

In reality, I suspect the lack of labour will drive some farms out of business, and others to change crops or usage. Either way, food prices are going up ...

If a Jihadist website acted like the national press, they'd be charged under anti-terror laws.

If TM calls a GE on Brexit, she'd better be careful:

Referenda and GEs alike have shown that the electorate may decide their vote on different issues to those the governments wants them to consider,
e.g. it could be a popularity contest of the government or its leader.

Not even a recent tendency .....
I remember Heath bullishly calling the 1974 GE during the miners' strike, Tory slogan: "Who governs Britain ?"
The voters answered: "Not you, dickheads"

Although TM may rightly assume that the electorate are likely to consider Jezza a feasible alternative as PM, a hung Parliament would be quite possible if the floating centre and disaffected Tory Remainers swing Liberal.
Her starting point is her current v small HoC majority, so she must dread swings against her.

She probably prays nightly for Jezza's continuing good health & for safe journeys on his bike.

The new constituency boundaries would be a great help, but they won't come until about 2018.
Also, to pass the legislation for that, she'd have to deal with Tory MPs whose seats disappear; some might not just accept an HoL bribe.

And calling an early GE is complicated

To call a GE they would either have to lose a vote of Confidence or pass a one off Act to say that they could do so, I gather. With the current bunch of spineless MPs in Parliament, who could say that they wouldn't do that?

Re The National. I agree with all the comments of condemnation. As I pointed out in anticipation of something like this on the Brexit Arms thread Lord Keen is a Scottish Law Lord.

Per wiki
"The office of Advocate General for Scotland was created in 1999 by the Scotland Act 1998 to be the chief legal adviser to the United Kingdom Government on Scots Law. This function had previously been carried out by the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, who were transferred to the Scottish Government on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The office of the Advocate General for Scotland should not be confused with that of "Her Majesty's Advocate", which is the term used for the Lord Advocate in Scottish criminal proceedings."

The interaction between the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland in very broad layman's terms is similar to the difference between a Scottish MP (Angus Robertson) and a Scottish MSP (Nicola Sturgeon). As such Lord Keen is representing Scottish Westminster and the Lord Advocate James Wolffe is representing Scottish Holyrood. The BBC's reporting has been woefully inadequate in explaining this imo.

Merry going back to US recounts. The reports I have read suggest cherry picking districts where the Democrats were most likely to pick up extra votes rather than demanding full State recounts. That is surely manipulating the vote rather than checking for accuracy? I have not been following very closely but my understanding is that the Wisconsin recount was stopped when it became clear it was likely to favour Trump.

If TM calls a GE on Brexit, she'd better be careful:

The question is, where is a determined Remainer (like myself) going to vote ? Obviously not Tory or UKIP. Labours supine stance is hardly encouraging.

It would have to be LibDem.

Would the 3-way split between Tory, UKIP and Labour be enough to deliver No Overall Control ?

Also, where would the soft-Brexiter put their vote ? Especially given that Tory and UKIP are probably going to end up having to out-hard each other ?

Also, would the inclusion of ex-pat votes (excluded from the Brexit vote) change the dynamic ?

Too many unknowns for my liking ....

I agree that one needs to accept that a government has been elected, unless there is a strong evidence that any fraud changed the result, not just that there were instances of fraud.

People & politicians can and should protest about policies, even if the electorate voted for them, but that is totally different to querying the election result.

Hypothetical example:
The Uk elects a government, on maybe just 38% of votes cast, to remove welfare benefits, including WTC etc for the under-60s. To remove workers' rights - hire & fire without 2 year limit, equal pay, maternity rights, disability rights.

Protest those policies every damn day, but the government was still legitimately elected and can carry out any policy that doesn't contravene the constitution or international law .

The result of the next GE is uncertain - but uncertain too for TM whether she would still have a majority, or even still be PM.
She won't risk that unless clearly in her party political interests.

So those people who don't like Romanians and Bulgarians - are they going to be any happier with Albanians or North Africans?*

Obviously not. But it gets worse ... the further away you need to pull people from, the more you will need to pay them to cover the journey (which is one of the reasons that Poland hasn't seen an influx of UK workers. They just couldn't pay enough to cover the journey).

So we will see immigrants doing jobs locals won't for even more money.

That'll go down well ..*

I'm perfectly fine with anybody, from anywhere, coming to work in UK.

Wrt the pay needing to be more to attract non-EU migrants?
Well, good.
I've never thought it's OK to rely on EU migrants to keep wages down tbh.
It's a master race thing in my mind - 'we' won't do those jobs for that paltry sum, but it's fine for 'people like you' to do them.

Perhaps a result of the increase in wages to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work will mean that the 'locals' will do them - just like they used to.

Bold fail in previous post...
Should be bold down to "That'll go down well..."
Sorry!

I've never thought it's OK to rely on EU migrants to keep wages down tbh.

No, but what is stopping employers from offering a fair day's pay for a fair day's work now? We have a minimum wage - I have not heard of a maximum wage. Partly, I imagine, it's supermarkets working on tight margins and keeping food prices low, but what else?

Red I thought that article on the meeting with TM was at the least a subjective one sided account. However biased as it probably was, TM is looking at the end of her tether at the moment, and it is entirely consistent with her attitude to immigrants (this was an immigrant after all), and what we know of her style, a bloody difficult woman. I also think it would not be a surprise if an Oxford educated middle class woman from a CofE background who has risen to the post of PM and is not known for her calculated charm (DC style) found some Australian appearing at a meeting with pie charts that no doubt went across her desk months ago rather irritating, and beneath her contempt. The more so when she is struggling with such an intractible problem of such overwhelming complexity. It may be only partially true or even a work of literature but it is illuminating for crystallising the common knowledge upon which it is based. Hilary Mantel wrote a story on Thatcher that was complete fiction but was thought provoking none the less. It could have happened, it is not jumping the shark in the way a lot of these post truth stories do, but then maybe that is the point, maybe the echo chambers in which these stories persist like their stories /movies to be filled with evil, fantasy and disaster.

Nobody pays more if they don't have to, do they.

If you've a workforce willing to work for the lowest possible wage then it follows that you pay them the minimum you can get away with.

Low/unskilled jobs are always vulnerable to this.
Unless a job is so objectionable that no-one will do it without more pay.

The min wage here is a few times more than the average wage in (e.g.) Poland - hence the overqualified & overskilled Eastern Europeans doing minimum wage, un/low skilled jobs over here.

GE is terrifying: increased tory maj being controlled by more of the ukips; decimated, reduced and at least by then leaderless labour party. The libs aren't going to win back the west country, I'm not sure where they could win. Terrifying prospect.

a50 case:

Helen Mountfield for the Claimants argues:
Schona Jolly @WomaninHavana
Broadest Henry VIII Clause in history, if Eadie right that 1972 Act was an empty vessel which Ministers cd fill or empty at will with RP.

I rather like her comments on the a50 and the Loch Ness Monster

UKSCblog.com @UKSCBlogcom
Mountfield: on false logic "as attempts to catch the Loch Ness Monster have been unsuccessful, the monster must still roam free" #Article50

Joshua Rozenberg ‏@JoshuaRozenberg
Helen Mounfield compares the prerogative to the Loch Ness monster: just because it hasn’t been caught, you can’t assume it’s still there.

Can't wait for the reporting on this!

Other gems from this morning:
Joshua Rozenberg ‏@JoshuaRozenberg
Feisty start from Richard Gordon. Tells the court a “child of six” could see flaws in the government’s arguments. Lord Neuberger is 68.

UKSCblog.com ‏@UKSCBlogcom
Gordon: "A child of 6 could respect this point" (you can't abrogate a prerogative power that doesn't exist). Lord Neuberger: "Well put"

I await the publication of a book 'Law For Six Year Olds' with baited breathe. (Or maybe I should study law just to write one).

David Allen Green is wondering if the government's responses this afternoon will use the 'Chewbacca Defence'.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
In which the aim is to confuse rather than argue the point.

Nessie, Chewbacca and Law for Six Year Olds. Law sounds almost fun today!

Unfortunately I have been watching the live feed for the last half hour or so, but I'm afraid, I haven't seen Lord Sumpton so I am unable to give you a tie update.

More seriously though, with regard to children:

Joshua Rozenberg ‏@JoshuaRozenberg
Manjit Gill QC deals boldly with the point that others avoided: Referendum Act is silent about consequences because nobody expected Brexit.

Joshua Rozenberg ‏@JoshuaRozenberg
Manjit Gill represents a group of unnamed nationals of other European countries living in the UK. It’s the only group that includes children

Greg Callus ‏@Greg_Callus
Gill QC submits unincorporated Convention on the Rights of Child entitles his U18 clients to know in advance what future law will be. Novel

This is an UN Human Rights Treaty which sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. (Will the UK try and opt out of rights like this next?!) Wiki on it here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

Joshua Rozenberg ‏@JoshuaRozenberg
Manjit Gill QC says his clients face the risk of being deported when Brexit takes effect. Says children are entitled to know their future.

WhilstRomeBurns ‏@FiskMann1
@JoshuaRozenberg prerogative act without guaranteeing child rights is regressive contrary to Art 4 UNCRC

Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
Simple but powerful point.

Manjit Gill QC showing real passion with this submission. Impressive stuff.

Good luck to the government on that one...

Elsewhere

Sticking with my theme of the day of fun and children and heavy weight politics in general.

www.buzzfeed.com/aishagani/muslim-leaders-do-not-want-to-ban-peppa-pig?bftwuk&utm_term=.rmrYda15y#.lyk9164Ej
A Lot Of People Actually Think Muslims Want To Ban “PeppaPig”

“Today is the first time I came to know of the programme,” said the Australian imam who found himself at the centre of a media storm.

Important stuff we all need to know about. As in important that we spot the fake news...

Laura Kuenssberg ‏@bbclaurak
No 10 says Boris Johnson's comments on Saudi Arabia are 'not the government's position' - ouch
Govt taking an unusual view of collective repsonsibility these days when views of senior ministers are not No 10's views v soon after...
EU Diplomat asked me recently, 'what should we tell our govt when they ask if we should listen to Boris?' ...a fair question
Foreign Sec not responding to No 10 - but I'm told points he made on proxy wars have been said to Saudis face to face

John Wreford @JohnWreford
Brilliant @BorisJohnson
Has gone rogue

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/brexit-neil-carmichael-push-uk-universities-cliff-edge-house-commons-committee-report-russell-group-a7463191.html
Brexit could push UK universities 'off a cliff edge', major committee report warns

A survey submitted to the inquiry shows 43 per cent of prospective students said Brexit had affected their decision to study in the UK - with most of those adding the results had made them less likely to want to study here.

"Even by conservative estimates this could cost Britain more than £690 million a year in lost fees, which will instead go to the likes of the US, Canada, Australia and Germany, among others," Mr Carmichael added.

Those immigrant students coming over here, with all their cash, spending it all on those university fees.... (Channels Stewart Lee doing his immigration act).

An Important intellectually heavy twitter thread between the Conservative and Lib Dem Press Offices: twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/806505615724052481
(No trolling here. Honest. One you have to click to get I'm afraid!)

Arj Singh ‏@singharj
Theresa May to be grilled by MPs on the Commons Liaison Committee on Brexit and health and social care spending on December 20
Oooo a Christmas Special. Does this include the opportunity to boo like in a panto? This looks FUN.

Oh and Louise Mensch is suggesting that Paul Nuttalls of the UKIPs is facing a fraud probe:
heatst.com/politics/exclusive-ukip-leader-paul-nuttall-facing-eu-funding-fraud-probe/

I generally ignore Heat Street; its normally click bait. So I'm not sure what to make of this one.

AND FINALLY. 2016 is The Year of Gin. Yes really. And they've even given it a Brexit spin.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/08/gin-record-sales-2016-drown-sorrows?CMP=twt_gu
The year of gin! Spirit enjoys record sales as 'people drown their sorrows'
Trade group chief says boost may be down to a series of celebrity deaths and divisive votes on Brexit and Trump

How very MN.

'GE is terrifying: increased tory maj being controlled by more of the ukips; decimated, reduced and at least by then leaderless labour party'

Totally agree. A GE would be an absolute nightmare. As would a second referendum - I am absolutely sure there would be an even bigger majority for Leave, and then they would bloody well have to go through with Brexit, which I firmly believe Theresa May does not want

Some employers do pay more than 'they have to'. They regard their employees as an asset and treat them with the respect that they are due. Years ago, I was auditing and happened to audit two firms in the same line of work near to each other. In one the staff had been loyal and stayed a number of years; in the other, the story was "you can't get staff". It wasn't for me to say that perhaps if you treated your staff as well as the firm down the road, they might stay with you.

Re Theresa May and looking extremely tired. Yes, she is, and yes, she has a difficult job, but she has handled it in a belligerent, confrontational style. If she had acknowledged that there was a mood to come out of the EU but it was close run, so needed proper time and consideration, and perhaps set up a cross party committee to do examine the issues, some of her problems could have been avoided. Similarly, she talked about 'a country which works for everyone', but that was empty rhetoric. I don't see her going round the country to listen to people and their problems and find out how to make the country work. I see her having an almost visceral hatred of immigrants, and being more concerned about keeping her party together. She is jolly lucky that the opposition is in a P*ss Poor state, otherwise she would be in real trouble.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pro-remain-mps-should-resign-says-tory-mp-a7462596.html
Pro Remain MPs should resign says Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax MP for Dorset South as its the only honourable thing to do.

(Yep that's his real full name).

So what about the 48% of the population that they represent. Especially in NI and Scotland? What about Remain constituencies with Remain votes.

Just Wow.

Mango You honestly think that there is a pool of British workers who will go and do the backbreaking work of picking fruit (and I have done it, and will confess I was uselessly slow and physically not up to it even though I was young and played a lot of sport) ? It is actually one of those unpleasant jobs you would need to pay British people a good deal more than minimum wage to do, and they still probably would not do it, no status, knackering. It was near my home too, I wasn't living in one of the manky caravans sharing one outside loo (and it was a long time ago, the Eastern Europeans were there on visas). Let alone do it for a wage that will enable the fruit farmers to compete with imports?

It isn't a simple equation that says that everything will be all right if all UK businesses pay a fair wage for a fair day's work. Some company's have business strategies focused on quality (and the attached higher pricing) that both need them to develop a skilled and motivated workforce and generate the margins to do so. However in many industry sectors and in some cases in whole industry sectors, as in fruit farming, the success of the business strategies of companies who compete on the basis of low pricing depend on a low cost base, including paying minimum wage, so they can price their goods competitively. Higher wages mean being less competitive (and without necessarily even getting greater productivity). I am sure it is right that starve the fruit farms of seasonal cheap labour (and Brexit has already done this) and British farms will go out of business, prices will rise and / or produce from countries where they pay lower wages will steal the sales in supermarkets (and add a lot more in terms of the effect of the food miles on the environment).

I am sure we will see this soon in other industries too. I am hearing it is already having an impact in e.g. the Car parts supply chain.

"if you respond to what is troubling people, the ‘populism’ tends to go away."

"The line in the Bertolt Brecht poem, ‘Would it not be easier … To dissolve the people/ And elect another?’, seems to sum up the attitude in various capitals."

An interesting take on "populism" in UK and Europe

www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-year-the-old-order-died-and-we-saw-glimmers-of-a-better-one/