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.

Rees-Mogg - Yes, it's a capitalist plot, good for me.

OlennasWimple, love the input from voters before he even starts his tour

Historical perspective on Skinner's stance. "The Labour Party had not yet recovered from its splits during the 1975 ref- erendum on membership of the EEC. Many members had campaigned for a “No” vote and the two-to-one national majority in favour of membership still rested uneasily upon the left body politic. Whilst most Labour Party members considered themselves internationalists, they were generally of the view that the EEC was a “capitalist club”. Castle thought it perpetuated Cold War div- isions. "
www.johnharperpublishing.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Wreckers-or-Builders-A-History-of-Labour-MEPs-1979-1999.pdf
Labour's split into SDP, was in some ways caused by EEC membership disagreements.

Most greens would surely have been strongly remain?

In fact looking at the Ashcroft polls Green voters were 75% remain

46% might be solid in a General Election. This is different.

1. If there is a turnout difference between North and South Manchester, then there is room for that 46% to be as not so solid.

2. Within Greater Manchester you have BOTH anti-immigration Labour and Corbynite pro-immigration Labour. Burnham might well alienate the latter leading to lower turnout of Labour voters even if they don't switch.

3. The difference in boundaries makes it a much different prospect to a GE. The 2015 turnout was lowest in areas which were solid Labour with no chance of anyone else getting in. This is depressing the vote of voters of other parties. This was a contributing factor in turnout at the EU ref was higher and unexpected in nature. People who thought their vote didn't count locally came out. In places whether Lib Dems and Cons also do well, turnout is higher overall.

4. There is also the by-election / local election dynamic. If overall turnout is significantly lower than at the GE and indeed referendum - which is highly likely - it comes down to voter motivation.

5. A combination of votes going to UKIP, LDs and Greens could be crucial. Labour is under pressure from all three in Great Manchester which is quite unlike more localised patterns.

Labour nearly had a big shock in 2014 in Heywood and Middleton at the by-election, due to low turnout

They managed to maintain their share of the vote but got run very close by UKIP because they didn't get as many of the GE election voters out as UKIP managed. This is the danger for them.

The expectation that Burnham is a shoe in, won't help get the Labour vote out.

So on the one hand you have complacent Labour voters and on the other motivated voters for other parties. And people perhaps more tempted to vote tactically.

I'd also make an argument against Green voters having Labour as a second choice post referendum.

Its possible that UKIP could encourage voters to have Labour as their second preference for Paul Nuttall, and I think that could have an effect too. One I wouldn't hazard to predict. It could be positive or toxic.

As I say I think Burnham WILL win, but I also think there will be something of a hollow victory about it too, as the campaign and the publicity it generates will be more important - as will the prospect of the Leigh By-Election.

Greater Manchester has had very few council by-elections since the referendum. There is little to go on, to get an idea of how it might go on that basis too.

Mango, if that's Burnham's long held position, I've not been aware of it and I think he's been very quiet since the referendum of that score. Its probably the publicity of those comments that's been ramped up then. Which says something in its own right.

I think Skinner and others objections to the EU as a capitalist club are a very old fashioned view. For the lexit vote, the victory of leave is more likely to bring in free market deregulation and reduction of union power, and many more things that they will protest against, than it is to deliver what they actually want.

As far as Labour's professional Northerner, AB, is concerned he is so desperate for power that he would accept any view recently. He threw his hat in for every job going in Labour and happily changed sides and opinions during the leadership election. I was rather disappointed.

I don't doubt Greens were majority Remain but I don't think they are single issue on Brexit in the same way as Lib Dems are. There is a degree of scepticism re EU credentials on environment and internationalism. I perhaps am misinterpreting as in Scotland the Greens align quite closely with the Left of the SNP which is (whisper it) Eurosceptic.

As far as Labour's professional Northerner, AB, is concerned he is so desperate for power that he would accept any view recently.

I agree. He's an opportunist. He knows he's going nowhere as a Labour MP. People who've met him are impressed by him - as in he's a nice guy - but this is just his bid for more power. Don't know how I'll vote yet.

I completely disagree with the characterisation of AB as an opportunist. I would say the worst criticism I could level is that he has been more pragmatic / realistic in putting forward his pretty consistent international socialist views. Since Red Ed and JC were / are routinely lambasted for being completely unrealistic I think it is a bit odd to then attack AB for his willingness to work more within the middle ground?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Burnham

Pretty fair summary of his positions over time in wiki I think?

I like him - he's been pretty consistent over time.
He's not London-centric Labour & is very pragmatic.

For the lexit vote, the victory of leave is more likely to bring in free market deregulation and reduction of union power, and many more things that they will protest against, than it is to deliver what they actually want

Unless you believe that a left wing Labour Party significantly influenced by other socialist organisations is electable. It's not the most widespread view, but it's clearly shared by some.

I don't think you can assume 46% Labour is solid based on 2015. I think they went and picked up some disaffected LibDems, who will now might well be prepared to swing back. So I think the 2010 result is a better indicator.

Agree with this Peregrina.

I've no illusions about left or right being inherently more virtuous.
The left has certainly in the past favoured a white population for cynical political advantage - even when whites were not native and not the majority:

e.g. in the 1920s in South Africa, during British rule, the mine owners wanted to liberalise the rigid colour bar and promote some black miners to minor supervisory positions.
This led to the armed "Rand rebellion" by white miners, in protest.

The CPSA (Communist Party of South Afica) sided with the white miners to preserve the colour bar with the slogan
"Workers of the world, unite and fight for a white South Africa!"

The communists cynically chose political advantage over justice for the oppressed majority African population.
They sided with the opressors; they chose racism and supported violence.

(I remember being absolutely shocked in my Uni days, learning about that)

The North , Lurkinghusband: it gives me the opportunity of no longer seeing my mother in law . I shall send her the immigration lawyers' bill though ..

Corcory: yes, it is a ridiculous situation to be in. Especially as to pension. It is pretty bad to be advised that all my NI contributions since 1981 do not count towards the Right to Reside Permit paper (although I have the right to reside!!)

Best to know: I wish that it were my interpretation! It is a tad more complex. This is why I have to use an Immigration Lawyers' firm that specialises in EU nationals ( very lucrative now). The House of Lords mentioned last week the Byzantine 5 year recent continual self sufficiency and Residence Permit.

See below excepts from lawyer:

^^It was explained by Nichola that whilst EEA nationals have the right of free movement in the UK, in order to apply for permanent residence, the Home Office requires you to have spent a continuous period of five years in the UK as what it describes as a ‘qualified person’. A ‘qualified person’ is either a student, a worker, a self-employed person or a self-sufficient person, and as discussed, in order to qualify as a student or self-sufficient, sickness insurance must be held.

^^You informed us that you have been in the UK since 1977, initially as a student and then as a worker and self-employed. More recently you stay at home to look after your child and would therefore be classed as self- sufficient.

^^If you were self-sufficient or a student, you must have held comprehensive sickness insurance for the duration of this time.

^^Uanfortunately the status of your daughter and husband does not alter the approach.

The 85 page document was introduced recently. It was meant for non EEA and is now used for EEA people which is totally inappropriate . For instance , how can you list all your trips to the continent whilst living in the UK!! And so on , and so on.

There are many people in my situation. I am lucky enough that I can afford a lawyer..

Lico I just did a quick check because I have several friends and relations in similar circumstances to yours and their understanding of the rules is different to your own.

^www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card/permanent-residence-card^

There seem to be rules for dependants which are not related to recent continuous employment? This may / will change after Brexit but not yet.

The rules I think you're referring to only apply if you're a dependant on an EEA national, though. So if eg you're a Polish SAHP who's never worked in the UK but your French spouse has permanent residence because they've been working for 5 years, you will too if you've been their dependant for those 5 years. You won't if you're that same Polish SAHP with a British spouse. Or any other non-EEA spouse in fact. Basically, you need your partner to have been exercising EU Treaty rights.

Unions are there to further the position of their members, TBH. Along the way they have helped drive social change (predominantly for the better), but they no more have a purpose to improve society any more than the large corporation whose first (and legal) duty is towards its shareholders.

Lico - presumably that requirement stems from the criteria to be eligible to exercise treaty rights of free movement? In practice, many many EU nationals have been in the UK technically in breach - and therefore with no legal status. Another interesting twist to Brexit, that the HO will have a better idea of how many people fell into that camp, even if only for a short period.

(How long before the "X% of EU nationals were here illegally" headlines.....?)

Ollenas: probably but am no lawyer.
This will however include many EU mothers married or in partnership with British Nationals . They probably were not aware that it was a requirement for them to have Private Sickness Insurance whilst looking after their British children because a) not employed b) not self employed c) not student d) not retired.

• A gunman - who was a Turkish police officer ! - has assassinated the Russian ambassador to Turkey.
  The cop yelled “Don’t forget Aleppo” as he shot him.
  Now, will Putin retaliate against Turkey in some way ? If so, will NATO retaliate against the retaliation ?
  Or will he stop the civilian evacuation from Aleppo ?

• Meanwhile, a truck crashed into a Berlin Christmas market in Berlinl killing 9, injuring over 50.

Merry fucking Christmas, everyone

Oh and 3 people were injured when a man stormed into a Zurich mosque today and opened fire on people at prayer

Kind of makes you realise that all this arguing about a change in trading agreements with our neighbours is a bit futile.

We have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.

Lico - agreed. Though ignorance of the law is no defence...

BigChoc and Darth - agreed

Olenas: not sure whether this is
a case of ignoring the law ..especially when it is not law.

"I don't doubt Greens were majority Remain but I don't think they are single issue on Brexit in the same way as Lib Dems are. There is a degree of scepticism re EU credentials on environment and internationalism. "

I don't think this is right, howabout. The Green Party itself was absolutely unequivocally pro-remain, and very vocal about its concern for the loss of environmental protections in the event of Brexit, while green voters were even stronger in their support for remain than lib dem voters -75% to lib dems' 70%.