Westministenders. Boris we wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy Constitutional Crisis?

[RedToothBrush]

Its twelve days to go until the end of the HoC 2016 calendar and we can already tell that everyone is wishing it was Christmas already. Poor Theresa though, she doesn’t get to play with toys on the last day of term. Instead she has a grilling on the lack of spending on health and social care spending by a commons select committee.

Hopefully the next couple of weeks will calm down a little though as thoughts turn elsewhere.

The A50 case has come to an end. There is no way of telling which way the judges will go but the decision to appeal may yet haunt the government as it will bring the issue of devolution to a head, whether they win or lose. The ruling is due in mid January.

Win and they are going to have to amend the Devolution Acts and potentially impose Brexit on people with certain national identities who voted against it. This is profoundly undemocratic and a betrayal of the principles of Devolution and the expectations of the will of the people.
Lose and they could face a full blown constitutional crisis, with NI or Scotland or both having a veto over Brexit, and the government effectively unable to trigger a50 in line with our constitutional requirement. Which is again, potentially profoundly undemocratic and against the referendum and the expectations of the will of the people.

It was a scenario that predictable and avoidable at several junctions yet the government under Cameron and May ploughed on regardless. It a scenario that we are now locked into, due to deciding to use the courts rather than just go through parliament.

It could also massively restrict the power of the executive under the Royal Prerogative. Ironically this is something that David Davis has campaigned for, for years so I guess he gets a victory however the decision goes.
So the chances of some kind of crisis with regard to our constitutional makeup and the union seem inevitable in the new year.

The government despite a defeat in Richmond Park continues to lean right and characterise anyone with concerns as unpatriotic or not honourable. This is the last resort of the desperate.

They have however, conceded to Labour that they will publish a report on their Brexit plans before a50 is triggered. In return Labour have promised that they will let a50 be triggered by the end of March. Is this a good thing? It remains to be seen. In some ways this is a blinder for Labour.

They are pro-Brexit but anti-lack of plan in theory. This only works if the plan actually has substance. If there is no substance in the plan and its nothing more than empty words then they face having to go back on a commons vote committing them to a deal with the Conservatives. It could therefore be a trap for them. It marginalises the none English Nationalist voices too. Voices that are important and deserve to be heard. Voices that if they are not listened to, will have consequences.

What will the Sleaford and North Hykenham (yep again) by election bring?

A vote of confidence in the government, a new ever growing and rising fear of UKIP or something else. How will this colour the start to the New Year?

I don’t know. 2016 has apparently been the year of gin as people turn to the drink to cope. Everything is now Brexitty and Red, White and Blue.
But whose’s? Britain’s? The USA’s? Russia’s? Or France’s?

We look forward to, or more to the point we fear what 2017 could bring. A feeling we have not felt to this degree in many years. A General Election with a UKIP breakthrough. The end of peace in NI. A repeat of the age old betrayal of Scotland’s by the English. The Welsh damned to irrelevance and marginalisation. Brexit vettoed and the subsequent political fallout. The end of the NHS. A bonfire of rights. A new Italian PM and possibly new Eurozone economic crisis. Fillon or Le Pen and at last a real victory for the far right in Europe. The chance of Merkel’s Last Stand. Putin’s partnership with Assad and a new genocide we are powerless to stop. Erdogan pulling the plug on the EU door and unleashing a new wave of refugees onto European shores. The horror of ISIS both within the West and within the Middle East. Trump’s neo-fascism and rise of a New World Order. There is something in there for everyone to dread.

Which will it be? Probably something we have not yet foreseen such are these times.

Act 2 of Brexit in Westminstenders land is bound to be just as dramatic and of course, we leave 2016 in true soap fashion on a real cliff hanger.

All the more reason to enjoy the holiday period and break whatever your politics.

Syria:
A good examination of the background and history, which helps understand how we reached this tragedy:

www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html

Deafening silence from the Brexiteers recently

www.ft.com/content/a3d0eff4-c224-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a

Lloyd’s of London has become one of the first major City businesses to put a timetable on plans to move a part of its operations to the EU in preparation for Brexit.

The 328-year-old insurance market is in the throes of choosing a destination from a short list of five and is likely to put a proposal to its members by February next year.

(contdf)

and ...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146

A post-Brexit UK-EU trade deal might take 10 years to finalise and still fail, Britain's ambassador to the EU has privately told the government.
The BBC understands Sir Ivan Rogers warned ministers that the European consensus was that a deal might not be done until the early to mid-2020s.
He also cautioned that an agreement could be rejected ultimately by other EU members' national parliaments.
PM Theresa May said she wanted Brexit to be "smooth and orderly".

(contd)

Yeah, Terri, and I'd like a Ferrari filled with Ferrero Rocher for Christmas. Looks like we'll both be disappointed.

He sees the seeds of that already in Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds could be mobilised and joined up and that with decent high speed links that economic growth could be shared with towns with more intransigent problems of disadvantage like Hull and Grimsby, and though he doesn't mention them think of Barnsley, Doncaster and Bradford too. The crucial point he makes is that with decent transport links there could be jobs available without people having to move away from their communities.

Add in Liverpool/Birkenhead and you could indeed have a South Pennine Powerhouse. Couple this with the existing Doncaster and Liverpool/Manchester electrified rail lines linking North and South (electrified since the early Sixties in the West coast case). This would make much more sense than HS2 which will suck traffic into London.

I despair of it happening because Theresa May seems intent on destroying the research base of our Universities, of which Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds all have a long reputation of success and newer ones like Bradford and Huddersfield have strong reputations in some more niche areas. Not destroyed deliberately but by accident because of her obsession with cutting immigration with university students being an easy hit. This is instead of having the sense to understand that a student being successful in education here can engender goodwill 10 or twenty years down the line when they return to their own countries.

I cannot see them bothering to make the investment in the rail links.
Some of this is lack of vision. In the 1950s there was an electrified rail link between Manchester and Sheffield, which went via the Woodhead Tunnel and past the Manchester Reservoirs, for those who know the area. It was the wrong electrification system and was closed, with the slower non-electrified route being used instead. Would it not have been possible to electrify it to the standard of the West coast main line, and use it as a spur from Manchester? And then carry on towards Doncaster and the East Coast line? Too late now - the route is now a footpath. And the Car/road haulage lobby is the one which has the Tories ear.

Rant over, but I get fed up with the Brexiteers saying that when we leave the EU we will invest in the North. We haven't bothered for the better part of 50 years both before the EU and after so what will make a Westminster based Government do so now?

Peregrina He addresses the idiocy of including overseas students in the immigration stats too. As he says they bring nothing but benefit and very few stayon. If you are really worried about the overstay issue, then include those that do when they do it. They are already on the radar, unlike the rest of the 1m or so illegal immigrants.

One of the many negative things about Brexit is the way it has given a platform to the creepiest of Thatcher devotees, such as Dominic Raab, author of 'Britannia Unchained' www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/22/britannia-unchained-rise-of-new-tory-right

who I was forced to listen to on this morning's Today Programme, still completely at odds with the political reality of Europe and desperately peddling the case that all will be well because 'they sell more to us than we do to them...." but still, no doubt believed by (17?) millions who don't necessarily know his 'bonfire of employment rights', 'nation of shirkers and dreamers of pop-stardom' back story.

Read this Guardian article from 4 years ago. How is that these dreadful people have somehow managed to 'take control'?

On Manchester, there is also the National Graphene Institute, funded with £23 million from the European Union regional development fund... (I haven't listened to the link, so apologises if already mentioned!

The UK can chose to either compete in the world with better high tech, or with better sweatshops.
Cutting down on Uni student numbers and destroying the Uk research base would set us firmly on the latter path

Looking at that guardian article, figment, I don't think the Walton Brexit and the Port Talbot Brexit are really on the same page...

'Brexit, in a single shot. This morning at the EU summit.'

BBC's Daniel Sandford

twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/809372192622387200

Stupid question alert on including student numbers. If they all go home then the ones that go net off against the ones that come and the impact is roughly zero. Therefore whether they are included in the target or not makes no difference surely?

Oof, Squoosh, That's painful to watch.

That troll article is really interesting, thanks for posting it kaija

howabout - that relies on stable numbers of students coming in and out every year, which is very unlikely bearing in mind that the length of courses can vary considerably from someone coming for 6-9 months as part of a study abroad program at another university, to 6-7 years for doctors / vets / dentists. And someone coming to take a BA in something like architecture (typically a three year course) might decide to stay on to complete post grad qualifications for another few years.

Plus of course many students switch (legitimately!) into a post-study work category and don't leave for many years, if ever. When the Home Office has floated getting rid of this option, or making everyone go back to their country of origin to apply for a work visa from there - getting the "in and out" effect that impacts the net migration calculation - the universities have been up in arms. They argue that a good post-study work offer is essential to attracting the best students (whilst also arguing that students shouldn't be part of the net immigration stats because they are only here temporarily )

I lay the blame for the "reducing net migration to the tens of thousands" firmly at the door of Call Me Dave. He was advised not to do it, but ignored it and announced a policy that is pretty impossible to attain without serious impact on universities. As Home Secretary, TM's success would basically be judged on a) how well she handled any security crises that arose; b) how well she handled the police; and c) how well she did in reducing net migration. I suspect that as PM she is basically continuing in the same vein rather than signalling a completely new change of direction. In due course Brexit should give additional levers to manage migration numbers, but that may well be long after there is a new occupant of No 10

howabout I think you are probably right in terms of net migration, although alongside the small number who overstay, around 20% stay on legally because they are recruited into long term employment (and few argue we should not keep the best talent if we can) or as a result of marrying (though from all the terrible stories that come up on my alumnae pages love of an overseas student is just as likely to result in the British partner having to go overseas).

However the point is that the government has made overseas students a target for reduction because they are a soft easy target, and that is now deterring good students from coming here. Visa interviews that intimidate by asking questions a home student would not have a clue about or asking why the student is coming here when they have perfectly good universities at home. It is very easy to drive up to International House in a Borders Agency van and round up 100+ students gathered for a cinema night to check all their documentation. Then arresting those who had been unlucky enough to take a particular language test and take them to detention centres, sometimes keeping them there for weeks. The Home Office decreed that test grounds for deportation because just one administration centre, out of many, was guilty of discrepancies and the High Court has ruled the Home office's actions illegal. It is all out of 1984 and what talented overseas student would want to put themselves through that when there are just as good universities in countries who will be more welcoming?

HowAbout New students arriving now will leave after 3 years:
That's no good for a politician wanting tabloid headlines headlines that they have reduced the number of foreigners in one brilliant stroke.

The givernment are pandering to people who want rid of all foreign faces & voices right NOW, because that's taking back control.

Also < horrified gulp > some students may stay another 1-3 years to do an Msc or PhD.
Even worse, the best & brightest may be invited to take up a post-doctroal research fellowship to do cutting edge research for 2-3 years < how very dare they show their faces >

Between BigChoc, some into further study, others into long term employment, the banks' and accountancy / tax consultancy grad recruitment schemes do recruit talent blind of nationality, as well as gender, disability, in some cases university given the access issues etc. and do recruit a significant number of overseas students.

Universities in the EU have lower fees than the UK - sometimes no fees - and they welcome foreign students with open arms.
Some courses in e.g. Germany are even taught in English, to maximise their appeal to the greatest possible numbers of students around the world.

Yep and that's very much the reason why we are looking at the EU for the dcs to go to Uni.
The difference in cost is such that it would mean them being able to study AND have a small deposit do rthier house rather than being lumbered with high death at the end of their 3 (or more ) years.
IF the UK was pulling out completely from the free movement of people, it would be interesting to see what would then the result re students. Would they still go away whilst eu students would not be coming (due to restrictions and cost).
In that case, the UK would have lost a lot.

Having said that, I love the 'we don't want students to verstay/stay foretell after their have their degree' and then say 'we want the best people for the job, it doesn't matter what nationality they are'.
Seems incompatible to me but....

The whole immigration discussion, writ large, is analogous to the whole |(philosophical) discussion around the criminal justice system ...

We have laws and penalties, but they can only apply to those caught and convicted. Otherwise, they are - frankly - useless.

It's the same weird logic with immigrants. We can't stop the illegal immigrants (almost by definition, we can't find them) so let's crack down on legal immigrants instead.

All of this against a backdrop of extremely low quality thinking. And to justify that slur, I remind readers that within the past decade, one of the ideas to "solve" illegal immigrants was to insist that legal immigrants (but not UK citizens) had to carry ID cards. If this were an exam question, I wouldn't even award points for any student who pointed out the flaws in that idea.

Sorry it's being lumbered with high debt not death!! Autocorrect going wild there.

I love the 'we don't want students to verstay/stay foretell after their have their degree'

But at the same time, 'we are open for business'.

I love the 'we don't want students to verstay/stay foretell after their have their degree'

But at the same time, 'we are open for business'.

I refer you to my suggestion of low quality thinking upthread ... (as if proof were needed)

When Brexiters said they were expecting short term pain for long term gain, exactly how short do you think they meant?

Anyone posted about this Joseph Rowntree Foundation study yet?
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/poorer-voters-worries-immigration-fuelled-brexit-vote-study-finds

The story in the Grauniad starts:
"The vote for Brexit was fuelled by poorer voters feeling they had very little control over immigration, coupled with a more general mistrust of politicians and officials, according to new research into attitudes before the referendum.

The study, carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, presents a wider narrative of voters being increasingly motivated by emotion, rather than economic choices, something the researchers said could point to a future in which populist parties thrive.

Personal feeling over immigration was a particularly dominant motivation in the run-up to the Brexit vote, said Nancy Kelley, the director of the policy research centre at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), which conducted the study.

“In a sense if you’re concerned about immigration, than experts arguing that it’s good for the economy is so missing the point,” she said at an event in parliament to launch the research.

“That’s not the debate you’re wanting to have. What you’re wanting to say is ‘I find this psychologically troubling in some way’ – how it’s making people feel.”"

“In a sense if you’re concerned about immigration, than experts arguing that it’s good for the economy is so missing the point,” she said at an event in parliament to launch the research.

“That’s not the debate you’re wanting to have. What you’re wanting to say is ‘I find this psychologically troubling in some way’ – how it’s making people feel.”"

The difficult here, is now do you give a rational answer - most of the places which voted Leave are predominantly areas with little immigration. Such immigrants as there are in those areas, are most likely to be health care workers.

My MIL (who did vote Remain mind) goes on and on and on about Immigrants, having swallowed the Daily Mail whole. The only ones she actually meets are a small number at Church, who are model citizens in many ways and with whom she has no quarrel whatever. What is the answer to that? She actually thinks she isn't one to grumble, but she does nothing but!

There were countless posters on here in the early days after June 24th who posted 'it'll blow over in a few weeks' or 'it'all be forgotten in a few months'.
That's when I really began to think Fuuucccckkkkkk.