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

990 replies

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2016 00:03

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
NotDavidTennant · 10/12/2016 12:35

What an utterly bizarre article.

RedToothBrush · 10/12/2016 12:42

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/10/supreme-court-brexit-appeal-judges-heading-split-7-4-decision/
Supreme Court Brexit appeal: Judges 'heading for split 7-4 decision' in narrow win for Remain campaigners

Government advisers believe there will be a split decision over the Supreme Court'sArticle 50 ruling, with judges voting 7 to 4 in favour of givingaParliament a veto onwhen Britain leaves the European Union, The Telegraph can disclose.

The news is a boost for the Brexit side, assome had feared before the case this week that the Government could lose the appeal by a majority of 10 to one.

A narrow win will make it harder for pro-European Union MPs and peers to frustrate the progress of a new law to trigger the start of Britain’s talks to leave the EU by the end of March.

Legal commentators and experts had believed the court comprised overwhelmingly pro-Remain judges, some expecting the pro-EU side would win by a margin of 10 to one.

However, government lawyers now believe the margin in favour of Remain is actually much narrower.

One source said: “It is difficult to predict how the case is going to go but the thinking of those in the room is that there might be a sizeable minority who are with the Government.

David Allen Green's response to the article:

Law and policy ‏@Lawandpolicy
In which a government lawyer speaks flapdoodle.

A careful reading of the piece suggest the source may be an adviser but not a government lawyer. Great scoop, but legal flapdoodle.

Anyone predicting a 7:4 split is committing the old mistake of trying to read a judge.

You can't, and certainly not supreme court justices.

If 7:4 turns out to be a correct prediction, it will only be correct by accident.

No basis for anyone to know that from the hearing.

Love the irony of a government adviser briefing press that 7:4 majority will only provide limited legitimacy, when Brexit vote was 52:48.

Also this is on his feed:

David Greene @LitLawyer
@Lawandpolicy @giveupalready The Sewel argument has little hope. The Scots serious question is to define "devolved matters" in s28(8).

(David Greene is David Allen Green's namesake not the same person. David Greene is one of the lawyers involved in the a50 challenge on the claimants side but I think he is involved with a different legal firm representing a different aspect to the challenge)

Sky News ‏@SkyNews
Jeremy Corbyn's speech had been disrupted by protests led by Peter Tatchell

This is something to do with not being critical enough of Putin

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam
Tatchell was a top endorser of Corbyn 2015: known him "for more than 30 years/ love nearly everything he stands for"

www.ibtimes.co.uk/im-backing-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-despite-his-unsavoury-friends-1518261
I'm backing Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leadership, despite his unsavoury "friends" (Tatchell on Corbyn from sept 2015)

Significant development and change of position due to Corbyn not doing more to tackle the problem, or just more Labour infighting?

Also noting Murdoch's move to buy out Sky. Funny how he seeks to do this now when people are preoccupied with other things, it gives him more power post Brexit and everyone has forgotten phone hacking. Oh and of course fake news is the enemy and Murdoch is now the cuddly friendly alternative we have known and trusted for years...

OP posts:
BigChocFrenzy · 10/12/2016 13:00

7 to 4 sounds like WAG (Wild-Arsed Guessing)

Do judges discuss their thinking with their law clerks / support team and would they leak ?
Or do our top judges really wear their opinions on their faces ?

A slight possibility: some judges are running scared of the political implications of ruling against the government, hence leaking that they'll soften the impact as much as possible with a split decision.

Castelnaumansions · 10/12/2016 13:02

Significant development and change of position due to Corbyn not doing more to tackle the problem, or just more Labour infighting ; significant Expect lib/lab remain pact in next 6 months, so the trots can go and play nicely with the uncle joes?

RedToothBrush · 10/12/2016 13:03

Oh and the Washington Post is carrying a story about how the CIA believe Russia helped Trump.

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUKKBN13Z05D?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=584bf67804d30155a0d489bb&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Suggestion that Obama is considering making this all public before Trump gets in. 7 senior democrat senators what it declassified.

I can't see this leak not being known about by the CIA and/or White House prior to publication.

(original WP article here but I got firewalled on it
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=7111481335261119&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.7a38fedd7a28)

James O'Brien ‏@mrjamesob
So when the head of the FBI chose to go public with Clinton's emails, this was sitting on the head of the CIA's desk. Sort of sums up 2016.

What the eff is going on in the US?!

Don't think it will help the USA. It might help save Merkel and Europe. There is much suggestion going on that Russia is interfering in Germany re: elections (What DID Obama say to May when he took her aside for ten mins? After seeing this story, I wonder if he talked about Russia.)

And here's a tweet I thought would be appreciated by a few of you here:

anya ‏@anyabike
Every time I hear Jacob Rees Mogg talking about the "metropolitan élite" I'm gonna post this picture

Westministenders. Boris we wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy Constitutional Crisis?
OP posts:
lalalonglegs · 10/12/2016 13:04

I think Murdoch wants to buy Sky now for financial reasons more than anything else: weak pound makes it much cheaper than before and, as no spring chicken, he wants to guarantee his children's succession.

I have proved my lack of legal expertise time and again but even I could tell that "leaking" the likely split in Supreme Court case is absurd.

BigChocFrenzy · 10/12/2016 13:08

Politicians have reason atm to be scared for their safety if they obstruct the current far right juggernaut.
Many MPs - especially women - reporting serious threats online and stalking.

2 separate cases where far right extremists were convicted & jailed for racially harassing & threatening Jewish Labour MPs:
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-38249351

RedToothBrush · 10/12/2016 13:13

a couple of tweets re telegraph supreme court article.

James Chalmers ‏@ProfChalmers
People responding to this by saying "you can't predict this!" - of course you can't, but that's not the point of the story.

Someone has decided it makes tactical sense to position the government to claim a political advantage in the event of a "narrow" victory.

No obvious downside in that strategy, and discussion of the accuracy of the prediction - as if it matters - just legitimises it.

Anyway, what's the flipside? If narrow defeat means the govt doesn't have to try very hard with legislation, what would narrow victory mean?

Also, I see I assigned different outcomes to the word "victory" in that thread, which is really because we're all losers whatever happens.

Martin George ‏@martingeorge
@ProfChalmers Also, how can the 'Remain campaigners' claim any 'victory', given the case is not at all about whether we Remain?

Steve Peers ‏@StevePeers
@martingeorge @ProfChalmers Leaver press has invested too much in that legal fantasy, they're not going to give it up lightly.

Ian Wickham ‏@Wkrs
@ProfChalmers if correct, very narrow - this decision and any 2016 plebiscite won by less than 15% should clearly be annulled

Steve Peers ‏@StevePeers
Good point in this thread: government is trying to 'spin' the result of Brexit Supreme Court ruling by predicting outcome a la byelections.

OP posts:
BigChocFrenzy · 10/12/2016 13:24

I could understand the equivalent of the French or Russian revolutions - the oppressed wiping out the elite.
The 2016 "revolutionaries" are still led by the elite - just to swap tsars.

NotDavidTennant · 10/12/2016 13:24

It clearly suits the Government's agenda to make the Supreme Court decision seem as if it's about whether the judges are personally for or against Brexit and not about the legal merits of the case. It will help them to fall back on the rhetoric of the judges being "metropolitan elite" thwarting the will of the people, if the the ruling goes against them.

Undermining the judicial process in this way also happens to be tremendously irresponsible.

Peregrina · 10/12/2016 13:35

What do people think of Farage's latest comments:

“I am having a great time,” I am not having to deal with low-grade people every day. I am not responsible for what our branch secretary in Lower Slaughter said half-cut on Twitter last night – that isn’t my fault any more. I don’t have to go to eight-hour party executive meetings.

“I don’t have to spend my life dealing with people I would never have a drink with, who I would never employ and who use me as a vehicle for their own self-promotion."

How does this square with his 'man of the people' act, who enjoys a pint down the local pub?

If I were a Farage supporter, I think I would be spitting blood, at being so patronised.

Kaija · 10/12/2016 13:49

I met his press guy some years ago (most definitely not a man of the people) around the time that UKIP were defending themselves by saying they were doing the nation a service in taking votes from the BNP. He had much the same story to tell about UKIP members.

Even harder to disagree with Will Self's description of Farage as a "grubby little opportunist" in light of these comments.

Dapplegrey1 · 10/12/2016 14:03

Peregrina - did you think Will Self's comments about Macdonalds were patronising?

whatwouldrondo · 10/12/2016 14:16

Peregrina When he said that he almost certainly had our deranged local candidates in mind, probably the one that got himself in Private Eye during the election for threatening to prosecute anyone who dared question his CV which was filled with bullshit the real reason UKIP did not field a candidate in the Richmond Park election

Peregrina · 10/12/2016 14:18

I don't know what Will Self's comments were about McDonalds. It hasn't been reported in the Press in the same way.

Did Will Self lead a political party? Did he stand in front of a poster depicting Syrian Refugees blatantly to blatantly stir up propaganda?

merrymouse · 10/12/2016 15:15

I didn't see question time, but here is a report on will self's comment:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/self-insults-people-who-work-9421517.amp?client=safari

He might have sounded patronising, but there is nothing new about referring to low paid, low skill, dead end jobs as 'mcjobs'.

However, they all sound a bit off the mark because mcdonalds are talking about moving an office on the basis of tax perks, not opening more restaurants. A new head office in London won't make much difference to people who voted Leave. It's not clear whether the UK will receive more tax - that depends on McDonald's tax planning skills and international cooperation on tax law.

Anyway, in general , McDonald's seems to be more interested in increasing mechanisation than creating 'mcjobs'.

Mistigri · 10/12/2016 15:49

Jo Maugham's crowdfunder has raised £45k in less than a day!

Re Farage, there's a good argument that even though he's a nasty piece of work, he's also an effective politician who has achieved the impossible in keeping together UKIP's weird coalition in whcih the only thing most of it's members have in common with each other is being old, white and a bit racist. I honestly cannot see to holding together now and I think the Sleaford result was the start of a long (or possibly short) slide into electoral oblivion.

Labour will soon need a new excuse for pandering to stupid racist people. Wtf does Andy Burnham think he's playing at?!

Mistigri · 10/12/2016 15:49

Its not it's. I do know the difference, but Apple does not.

MangoMoon · 10/12/2016 15:55

On QT, re McDonald's:

The announcement from McDonald's hadn't been officially made when QT was recorded - it was just a (well founded) rumour at that point.
In response to a question about Corporation Tax, Nigel Farage mentioned that multi national companies being enticed over to uk by lowered Corporation Tax is no bad thing.
He then mentioned that McDonald's were apparently going to move their non US base to uk from Luxembourg.
Will Self's immediate response was to mock McDonald's jobs & say 'mine's a big mac' as well as 'great jobs, yeah, great jobs'.

Seen in context, my immediate reaction was 'you wanker' about Will Self.
Smug twat.

On a further not about that episode of QT in particular - it's worth noting that we all appear to see a different version of it.
I watch it as a leaver, with my own personal experience and background - others watch it from their own perspective.

Over half of the voters in uk voted Leave, just under half voted Remain - the country is split practically down the middle.
Why does Farage appeal to voters?
A question that is repeatedly mused.

That episode of QT is a perfect example of that:

Farage uses plain, accessible language, he speaks to people and actually answers the questions they ask (Louise Mensch also did that).

Will Self appeared to have went in, knowing Farage would be there too, with a prepared list of witty & withering put-downs, which he deployed as expected at opportune moments.
However, when things came up that didn't fit his prepared narrative, he reverted to type & appealed only to his demographic - middle class socialists.
Middle class socialists are not a majority demographic in this country.

The Labour guy didn't directly answer questions at all, he answered questions he wanted to hear - not what was actually put to him.

The conservative Rep was very good overall.

So - from that episode of QT alone, you have an answer in micro as to what is going on in politics and with voters:

  • People want to be heard.
  • People want their actual views to be heard, and actual questions to be answered.
  • People do not want to be fobbed off with spin.
  • People do not want to feel sneered at, or looked down upon.
  • People want to be told the truth - not finessed with platitudes or 'The Message'.
  • People are ok with other people fucking up (including politicians), so long as the person who has fucked up puts their hands up and acknowledges that they've fucked up, and apologises.
MangoMoon · 10/12/2016 16:00

Sorry, in my last post I meant to add into this para:

So - from that episode of QT alone, from the content of that QT episode in total, as well as the way the panellists performed, you have an answer in micro as to what is going on in politics and with voters

MangoMoon · 10/12/2016 16:03

And by middle class socialists I meant his (Will Self's) type of middle class socialists - the sneery, superior sort.

I didn't mean all middle class socialists are like that, sorry.

merrymouse · 10/12/2016 16:13

good points Mango, but equally,

  • plenty of people don't like to be told things that are verifiably untrue.
  • they don't like bigots
  • they want to know the details and understand the logic.
  • they can spot when somebody is taking advantage of people they 'wouldn't take for a drink'
  • they don't like catch all words like 'elite' that are used to close down debate.
  • they really, really like experts.

If Farage is responsible for Brexit, he is also responsible for winning it in a way that has made the Leave campaign look stupid and racist.

If remainers are sneering at leavers, most of the responsibility for that lies with Farage.

merrymouse · 10/12/2016 16:24

Did Farage explain how McDonald's moving an office to the UK for tax reason's would help the UK economy?

(Still don't think have stomach to a actually watch the programme).

RedToothBrush · 10/12/2016 16:28

Sarah Wollaston was good. She's on the liberal end of the conservative side. Her position on health is not a tory one.

Richard Burgon is a total non entity. He just annoys me for no apparent reason. He has no spine.

Will Self is smug self important twat. I've always thought that and groaned inwardly when I knew he was on QT.

That said I agree completely with his comments on Farage. On the other hand I thought he was a prick on his other McDonalds comments. I think McDonalds coming here because its a tax haven is not necessarily a good thing, even if it brings in money. At what price socially is there for that. Tax havens over look bad things and are the very epitome of neo-liberalism which I thought was supposed to be dead. Self could have focused on that aspect but instead was a prick.

In terms of Andy Burnham, he has an upcoming election to win.

And Mango, I don't disagree with any of those points.

In fairness to politicians I do think they face a problem on how to deal with certain questions and members of the public who are 'difficult' and narrow minded. If you come across some of them, how do you tackle that, without being patronising or offending when they don't listen in return? Its fine if you come across people who are prepared to listen or are open minded enough to agree to disagree, but there are lots who aren't in that category. I know why spin is used for this reason. As well as to stop getting into a debate where if you are honest, you end up being misconstrued as the media reports only a small part of what you say without the important cavets and qualifying details. Politicians are often unable to be as honest as they like as a result, not because they don't want, but because it will be manipulated against them. Plus they are constrained by party lines.

I don't envy them and I'm not saying that's right, but unless the public have a better understanding of why politicians are sometimes force to spin and start asking questions of why its happening and in effect demand reporting that is accurate it won't stop because it can't. I can't see that happening easily when politics are restricted by 140 characters.

Its a two way process between politicians and the public that comes through the gateway of the media. The public have to be conscious of their role in and how change can only come about if they realise that, and question what comes from the media more rather than seeing a headline and taking at face value and staying in a media echo chamber.

Populism has been totally driven by this dynamic. The public are getting what they want except its not really what they want...

OP posts: