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.

peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-stop-being-wrong-about-single.html

Blog piece by Peter North, a leaver, on the single market.

(he's for staying in it, in case you are wondering). Its a decent read and worth reflecting on.

I don't think Theresa May has the courage to sack Boris (few people do, he was absolutely vile to his notional bosses at the Telegraph and Spectator). She would be, as was said upthread, worried about him creating a rival court within the Tory party and, in a way, it suits her his being "cheeky"/"outspoken"/"a liability" because she can slap him down and look like she is in charge.

www.crowdjustice.org/case/brexit-for-the-100/
From Jo Maugham's crowdfunding page:

"What happens next?
When sufficient funds are raised we will initiate proceedings in the Irish courts. I have reason to believe that one or more MEPs will agree to act as Claimants. We will not take any money you pledge until they (or a suitable alternative) do.

We will ask the Irish courts to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the two questions- both of EU law and so both for that Court - whether (1) Article 50 is revocable and (2) whether triggering Article 50 also means we automatically cease to be members of the EEA.

Why Ireland?
The case is being brought in Ireland because the Irish Government has, we say, colluded in a breach of the EU Treaties by wrongly excluding the UK from meetings of the EU Council. We can only make that claim in the courts of Ireland.

Ireland also has a major stake in whether the UK remains in the EU or EEA. We came into the Single Market together, if we leave it alone there will be enormous economic and social disruption to both Ireland and Northern Ireland."

'We' refers to the UK, not Ireland.

That YouGov poll says only 28% of voters expect they personally will be worse.
So the "Have cake & eat it" policy seems plausible to many, not just the 3 Brexiteers.

The Tories will probably only be punished if and after they deliver a Brexit that can be proved to have cost ordinary voters.
It may be difficult to show that any downturn wouldn't have happened anyway, or maybe it was all due to the mean EU not treating the UK as special.

This is why hardline Brexiters keep desperately claiming the EU is facing collapse & catastrophe:
they need to convince people they are escaping disaster, to accept hardship.

Also why Remainers keep trying to delay Brexit, so that some of its effects become apparent before Brexit, rather than when it is too late to demand at least a Soft Brexit / Soft Landing.

MangoMoon - you ask why Farage appeals to voters.
I think the real question is, 'Does Farage appeal to voters?'
He himself manifestly does not, in person.

Does blanket coverage of a person in the media equal appeal to voters?

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.

Maybe the best question here is 'Why does Farage appeal to MangoMoon?'

- 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.

• Let's add: 'People warm to someone who panders to their personal insecurities.'

And ultimately - 'People [want to] hear what they want to hear.'

^^ The comment here is on the preference for echo chambers in general, not MangoMoon personally - apologies for not making that clear.

If you actually really truly want to understand Why?! then you have to step outside your own bubble.

The answer to 'why' is that certain execrable politicians, commentators and elements of the media have encouraged voters to believe that there are simple answers to complexity in general.

And ultimately - 'People [want to] hear what they want to hear.'

Absolutely.
As I said, I watch something with my own preloaded preconceptions & prejudice - someone else will watch the same thing and view/hear it completely differently due to theirs.

Farage also fobs people off with rubbish he spouts on the spot. When on the Daily Politics, he told Andrew Neil with the usual "tell you what we can do, we can slap certain percentage tariffs selectively on some countries', paraphrasing. This must have come up a few times before 'cos the researchers had prepared the 'that is illegal under WTO unless you are in a trade agreement with somebody'. Farage didn't bat an eyelid or put his hands up and say 'I'm bsing you mate'. He did a seque into 'Well, tell you what, we can do XYZ then'. Of course, XYZ was probably against some other trade rules too, but Neil didn't know to point that out.

Sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, but a wide boy that appeals to people who like his tone.

Nicky Morgan comments in the Times about May's £1000 leather trews and Theresa is not very happy.

'Downing Street has withdrawn an invitation for Nicky Morgan to speak to Theresa May about Brexit, after the former Education Secretary criticised the Prime Minister’s £995 trousers, it has been claimed.'

Before she became PM I thought TM would be quite haughty and austere, I never knew she'd be so easily piqued and so petulant.

That was the conclusion of the blogger/constituent who got 15 minutes with her in her surgery to ask her about Brexit. (Easily piqued, petulant).

£1000 for a pair of trousers that you cant wash

Or can you wash them now?

£1000 for a pair of trousers that you may or may not be able to wash

I suppose that one of the benefits of brexit has been to encourage cross-party sympathies. I find myself warning to Ken Clarke, John Major and now ... Nicky Morgan??!!!

The case is being brought in Ireland because the Irish Government has, we say, colluded in a breach of the EU Treaties by wrongly excluding the UK from meetings of the EU Council.

I thought it a bit off myself that the UK was immediately excluded from formal meetings. Having said that, we have been like a kid in the playground always wanting his or her own way, nothing ever satisfies him/her and in the end the others say, right, go on then, take your ball away. Then the kid goes whining to Mummy saying that the others are being mean, they won't play.

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/theresa-may-s-995-trousers-sparked-debate-but-david-cameron-s-suits-cost-much-more-a7462891.html

NM is a good deal younger than me but she doesn't look it. Perhaps she should consider spending more on her clothes, but in her case I think leather trousers would definitely be a mistake. I am not awaiting "my clothes are so impractical I clearly never do any housework or have any fun SamCam's" fashion line with bated breath - these are the sort of woman belittling comments NM invites when she tweets as she did. I thought we had got beyond that but clearly not.

Nearly £1000 for a pair of the most unflattering trousers? Mrs May says she has been going round the country listening to people. Which people did she listen to? Not those on the minimum wage. Not those depending on food banks. £25 is the sort of money I spend on a pair of trousers, and I would think I was pretty typical in that respect.

Do leather trousers flatter anyone?

I think the interesting thing about the leather trousers is the lack of judgement.

It's an odd choice for a prime minister - an item of clothing which I think people generally would perceive as ostentatious and more associated with young people and celebrities. It kind of suggests that May has started to believe that she can get away with anything (she may be right).

It's not really comparable with Cameron's suits: we expect prime ministers to wear suits and I don't suppose that anyone believed he got them from M&S. A suit is worn regularly; what's bizarre about the leather trousers is being photographed in an ostentatious item of clothing that she might only wear once and which - at least for the older people who make up her core voters - has associations with rich people behaving badly.

Cameron was at least a little sensitive about tone and subtext; does anyone else remember the debate about what he should wear to the royal wedding? (He planned to turn up in a regular suit rather than formal wear, in keeping with his man of the people shtick).

I think Nicky Morgan's comments are unwise, but the only woman shaming going on here is from howabout with his or her distasteful comment about Morgan's figure

howabout you not being so revoltingly sexist and appalling? Yeuch.

If she went round saying 'I'm a woman of the people', yes, the trousers would be off, but she doesn't. She's from the party of the moat and duck house and as long as she's not claiming them as her second home, I can't see the big deal.

I agree with birdy. I don't care what she wants to spend £900 on.

However, from reports in the papers, Nicky Morgan's comment was that some people do care, and I imagine that she is right.

At the moment I would quite like the PM to listen to opposing points of view.

Last night's tweets from America make for reading so grim I don't want to repeat tbh.

Michael Moore wrote this:
Trump's Sec of State: ExxonMobil CEO. That's 10 billionaires/millionaires & 3 generals. Fascism's the marriage of the corp. & military state

This in addition to calling the CIA idiots (people who risk their lives for the country and its sovereignty) in response to the Russian report whilst he appoints someone with Russia's highest civilian award as secretary of state.

Of course these are the same idiots he wants to start carrying out torture.

And then there's the memo wanting the names of the scientists involved in the Paris climate change deal.

Voices on Twitter are getting increasingly desperate about impeaching or blocking trump from office before it's too late.

Trump was also talking about voting suppression again.

Then there is the comments about the normally sane and rational academics pretty much turning to drink.

And we are arguing about Theresa May's trousers.

No plan but to lead the country into misery?
Hey sounds cool
Wear £1000 leather trousers? outrageous!

Yes it is desperate, red. And I don't really understand how it has got to the point where the CIA's report on Russian interference in the election is just being shrugged off. It would seem to put to bed very swiftly any notion that there are checks and balances that would stop a slide into full blown fascism or whatever new ism this turns out to be.