Westministenders: A Pickling Summer

[RedToothBrush]

May has survived. The Turd Way has survived.

Whether this is true is another matter. The Turd Way was hijacked by the ERG who ripped it up and turned it from being a starting point to another ridiculous declaration of believing in Royal Unicorns. Rees-Smug has declared May LINO (Leader in Name Only) in tribute to BINO (Brexit in Name Only).

No one yet has grasped the consequences for NI. The backstop was absent from the White Paper except to say, it would never be used.

Johnson also in his commons resignation statement lives in a fantasy land, saying we had 2 and half years to get something in place for the Irish border. Except we don't because we don't have an agreed plan, we haven't hired the people to do it, there is no guarentee the way we are going that we will get a transition agreement agreed to afterall; its entirely dependent on us meeting certain criteria.

Even the Irish themselves haven't got to the point of admitting the possibility that there will be an Irish Border. Under WTO rules, members are legally required to secure their borders. If we are separate members to the EU we have to secure our border and they have to secure their border. In theory NI could be a separate member to the rest of the UK but this would breech the priniciple of a border in the Irish Sea.

No Deal has moved from being an option to being a distinct possibility.

The Trade Bill passed through the Commons unscathed with a dodgy pairing, the assistance of Labour rebels and the brewery tour organising skills of the LD and Labour whips despite the best efforts of Tory Rebels. It suggests the ERG have the numbers to force things but there still are no guarentees of anything.

We've had calls from Justine Greening for another referendum; despite it being obvious that the laws on referendums being ridiculously weak and just about everyone ignoring the findings of the electoral commision and the Leave Campaign's referal to the police. Even then the maximum penalties are wholly inadequate to prevent and deter electoral rigging.

We've had calls for a cross party government of National Unity. Which has been dismissed by Corbyn as an attempt at an establishment stitch up.

We've had the former Head of DexEu (the department who have refused the most FOI requests) and various ERG backbenchers (who said that publication of documents would damage the governments negotiations) ask for transparency and for draft DexEu documents to be published.

Ian Paisley Jr appears likely to be suspended from sitting in the HoC from 4th September for a month for breeching parliamentary standards, losing May one vital vote. She has however been bolstered by the resignation of John Woodcock from the Labour Party pledging his ongoing support of Brexit (he's been a Labour Rebel in the past). Plus there is the O'Mara Factor whereby the whole country could be at the mercy of whether Jared can be fucked to turn up to work at all or not.

There are growing signs out there for increasing support for EEA though despite it all.

The Trade Bill now goes to the Lords, where there is suggestion they might throw it out, after the Speaker declared they had the power to do so as it was a Supply Bill rather than a Money Bill thanks to the Amendments the ERG supplied.

All the while jobs are lost and companies are abandoning the UK and NI has had the most violence in years, but no one cares because Brexit means Brexit and its all worth it.

And finally, when being questioned by the Liason Select Committee, May said that 70 Technical Notices for Households and Businesses in the Event of No Deal would be published in August and September.

The country is in a total pickle.

Do we think there will be a leadership election for the labour party any time soon?

I don't know, but (and I guess this search would have flagged up my internet history to the spooks ) I found this interesting, if in bad taste.

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/12/hung-parliament-death-rate-mps

I can't see Corbyn going at the moment and I don't think McDonnell would be much better. I think the youth vote must be getting pissed off over the Brexit stance though.
Interestingly the Labour party has a policy the we emigrants should not keep our vote after 15 years. They said that after 15 years we must have lost all connection with the UK, though they still take my membership money....

Confirmation of what we've been saying wrt UK flights:

UK-Ireland flights will be grounded without post-Brexit deal

IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) confirms that UK and EU carriers will lose connectivity in hard Brexit

This is not “punishment”, but automatic, according to international law, see
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R1008&from=EN

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/uk-ireland-flights-will-be-grounded-without-post-brexit-deal-1.3571311

Under the Chicago Convention, aircraft from signatory countries have right to overfly another signatory country’s airpspace, and this will continue after a no-deal Brexit.

However, flights between the UK and the remaining 27 EU member states will be grounded in the event of a hard Brexit unless a side deal covering aviation is struck.
...
a spokesman for the IAA said: “There would need to be a new agreement in place to maintain the existing level of connectivity between Europe and the UK.”

Asked to clarify whether this would mean another agreement would be needed for UK flights to land in the Republic and other EU states, the spokesman said: “Regarding EU/UK flights, yes, another agreement or the reinstatement of old bi-lateral agreements would need to be in place if a hard Brexit occurs, to provide for connectivity between Europe and the UK.”

The spokesman pointed out that “there is no World Trade Organisation (WTO) fallback position for aviation traffic rights in the event of a hard Brexit”, and said this had been conveyed to the Government and the European Commission.

This position was backed up by the European Commission, which said EU rules in the field of air transport will no longer apply to the UK after Brexit, which would have “consequences in the different areas of air transport”.

More detail from RNorth in
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86941

”All of this, of course, makes a nonsense of the idea that the UK can simply walk away from the Brexit negotiations and rely on WTO rules.
For aircraft to continue to fly, the UK must negotiate a number of complex deal with the EU.

It must also make arrangements with the 49 other countries covered by EU agreements.”

I thought it was govt policy to change it, but they never can find the time? We have 18months left....

We have until 29 March 2019
Without a Withdrawal Agreement, there will be no transition period

Exactly. I have started to quietly stockpile a few things I might miss in April 2019.

Sorry BigChoc the 18 months was a crossed-post about (OH and I) losing our vote under 15 year rule.

I see that Vernon Bogdanor in today's Guardian is calling for another Referendum. He proposes a two stage event as the New Zealanders did in 1992 on electoral reform. Leave the EU or Remain. If Remain, the second stage is not required. If Leave whether the electorate wants the deal agreed with the Government or a deal proposed by the Brexiters.

To roughly summarise:
He makes this suggestion because he says that a General Election is likely to return another indecisive result, in part because voters vote on numerous issues. He says the idea of a Government of National Unity is not feasible because both the major parties are split and there is no will for this. Furthermore he thinks that a change of Tory leader would make no difference, that a leader would have the same dilemmas. He also doesn't think that it's undemocratic, pointing out that Farage had said if the result had gone the other way it would be unfinished business, and that the Brexiters would keep holding referendums until they got their way when suddenly the sovereignty of the people would come to an end. He thinks their denial to offer their opponents another referendum is because they are afraid they would lose.

I think his arguments have some merit, and provide some way out of the impasse. I think however, Parliament would have to make much stricter rules as to what was allowed - e.g. no false statements about 'vast' sums of money going to the EU, with the implication that we would spend it on the NHS. It would also require a proper analysis of what to do if the Leave vote were to win. They would have to furnish a proper prospectus of their aims, not glib promises of WTA terms, and deals which would be made in an afternoon. They would for example have to spell out what they would do about the Irish/NI border.

US flights might be grounded, too.

The 'open skies' row shows how Trump will exploit Brexit at Britain's cost

The row centres around attempts to keep planes flying across the Atlantic after Brexit. As things stand, Britain is set to leave the EU-US 'Open skies treaty' when it leaves the EU. In order to ensure planes can still fly, Britain will need to negotiate a replacement agreement with the US.

However, according to an explosive FT report this week, the US offered Britain in January a far worse "open skies" deal after Brexit than it currently has as an EU member. According to their report, accepting such a deal could seriously damage the flying rights of major UK airlines and — in the event of failure — see flights grounded between the two countries.
uk.businessinsider.com/open-skies-us-trade-deal-brexit-trump-2018-3

Makes sense. They could even promise a new EU ref in 15 - 20 years if the result is Remain.

We’ve come to a dead end. Something needs that be different be.

Flights will be stop to all 49 non-EU countries with whom the EU has an aviation agreement, since the UK automatically drops out of these

Well I did start a petition but it was rejected as this one beat me to it...
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/225296
So please sign this one instead.

Wording is:
Form a Government of National Unity to oversee Brexit

Following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain in 1940, a cross-party government of national unity was formed with Churchill as PM and Attlee as deputy PM. The U.K. is facing a similar national emergency now, and we need a similar remedy now.

Anyone thinking hey could still get away by sea:

Uk ships & ferries won't be certified either: the service, the captain & crew, the boats seaworthiness etc
So they can only be used within UK waters

Uk ships & ferries won't be certified either:

What about Eurostar? Same issues?

Signed the petition. Trying to take in the fact that we have brought on ourselves, totally unnecessarily, a crisis comparable to 1940.

How about rail? Eurostar and Eurotunnel?

I see that Vernon Bogdanor in today's Guardian is calling for another Referendum.

The problem is, he is "an expert", and so his thoughts are useless - a waste of time. What we really need is Melanie Phillips. After all, despite knowing fuck-all about anything constitutional law, she went head to head with VB the day after the coalition was announced to tell him that he hadn't got a clue about elections, and coalitions were an affront to God and Nature (well, she may have, I seem to have develop a syndrome where I see certain peoples faces, and my ears stop working).

He is of course, stunningly sensible, and deserves to be ignored for that alone.

I don't want a "national government" with May and Corbyn. If we are to have such a beast, it would need to be with fresh, untainted people.

I think the phoney war is over. News flooding in faster than anyone can read - let alone digest.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/supreme-court-battle-between-scotland-and-uk-over-brexit-bill-1-4772995

Brexit legislation passed by Holyrood is to come under scrutiny at the UK’s highest court.

Supreme Court justices in London are being asked to rule on whether the EU exit bill passed by the Scottish Parliament in March is constitutional and “properly within devolved legislative powers”.

The move seeking “legal certainty” over the legislation was taken “in the public interest” by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Government’s senior law officers.

A panel of seven justices, including the court’s president Lady Hale and deputy president Lord Reed, will hear argument over two days, beginning on Tuesday.

The issue the judges are being asked to decide is “whether the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland Bill) is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament”.

When details of the case were announced in April, the then Attorney General Jeremy Wright said: “This legislation risks creating serious legal uncertainty for individuals and businesses as we leave the EU.

“This reference is a protective measure which we are taking in the public interest.”

Advocate General for Scotland Lord Keen said: “By referring the Scottish Parliament’s Continuity Bill to the Supreme Court we are seeking legal certainty as to its competence.”

The Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer has previously ruled the Scottish EU Continuity Bill is outside Holyrood’s competence - although SNP ministers say they are confident it is not.

Michael Russell, minister for UK negotiations on Scotland’s place in Europe, said: “The Continuity Bill was passed by 95 votes to 32 in the Scottish Parliament, that is an overwhelming majority.

Scottish ministers are satisfied that the Bill is within legislative competence.”

As well as hearing the case put forward by the law officers, the justices will also hear submissions in response from the Lord Advocate.

In written submissions to the Supreme Court, Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC argues that the court should rule “in the negative” on the question posed by the law officers relating to whether the bill “as a whole” is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

He points out that although the reference to the court “arises in a politically contentious context, the issues which arise for the court’s determination are strictly issues of law”.

Mr Wolffe states: “The purpose and effect of the Scottish Bill is to promote legal certainty by making provision for the continuity within the domestic legal system of existing EU-derived law upon and following withdrawal.

“Regardless of any treaty on the future relationship which may be entered into between the UK and the EU, there is a need to provide for legal certainty and continuity when the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, and that is the purpose and effect of the Scottish Bill.”

Submissions will also be made by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and the Counsel General for Wales as “interested parties”.

Scottish Secretary David Mundell said in a statement: “Given the view of the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer that the Continuity Bill was not within the legal scope of the Parliament, we believe it is important to ask the Supreme Court to provide absolute clarity.

“The legislation which set up the Scottish Parliament anticipated such a situation, and we are simply following the legal process set out in the 1998 Scotland Act.”

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16372793.no-deal-brexit-preferable-to-breaking-up-300-year-old-union-insists-david-mundell/

LEAVING the European Union without a deal would be preferable to breaking up the Union of the United Kingdom, David Mundell has insisted.

The Scottish Secretary said he did not want to see a no-deal Brexit but he could not accept an arrangement that "threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom" such as one put forward by the EU on Northern Ireland, which would see a border down the Irish Sea.

Mr Mundell argued Theresa May’s Chequers Plan represented a good deal and urged people from across the political divide to rally behind it to avoid crashing out of the EU with no agreement.

His remarks came as MPs engaged in a Government-inspired debate on “Strengthening the Union,” in which Labour's Ian Murray said the Brexit "chaos" caused by the Tories “reckless” referendum meant they now posed as big a threat to the continuation of the UK as the SNP did.

His Labour colleague Lesley Laird, the Shadow Scottish Secretary, accused both the Conservatives and the Nationalists of "sawing away at the legs that support the Union".

However, the SNP's Alison Thewliss drew laughter when she suggested the 300-year-old Union was "more like a fur coat nae knickers type of deal".

The Glasgow MP pointed to the plight of Waspi [Women Against State Pension Inequality] women, the child tax credit "rape clause" and the rollout of Universal Credit as evidence the Union was not working for Scotland. Earlier following a regional Cabinet in Gateshead, Mr Mundell visited the Google Digital Garage in Edinburgh, where he made clear a no-deal scenario would be “very disruptive” to the country’s economy.

“It would be a very difficult situation to be in but it would be preferable to breaking up the United Kingdom; but I don't think it's preferable to an arrangement of the sort the Prime Minister is putting forward. "I don't want to see a no-deal, I don't' think a no-deal situation is good for Scotland, good for the United Kingdom.

But we can't have a situation where the EU can determine that part of the United Kingdom can be dealt with differently than other parts and one of their offers does do that in relation to Northern Ireland,” he added.

Opening the Commons debate, Chloe Smith, the Cabinet Office Minister, reiterated that the Government's duty was to "govern for the whole of the United Kingdom" while also acknowledging the development of devolution.

"The Prime Minister's words show this Government believes this Union cannot and should not be taken for granted," she declared.

Ms Smith insisted being part of a "bigger, stronger" UK benefited all citizens in the four nations.

But Ms Laird denounced the Government’s “ineptitude, selfishness and brand of politics,” which had played into the hands of SNP “opportunists”.

"Do the Union a favour, do the country a favour, do the millions of people a favour whose lives are worse off under your rotten Government; move over and allow Labour to govern."

Today, her colleague, Jeremy Corbyn will be in Birmingham to launch Labour’s “Build It In Britain” campaign to boost UK manufacturing after Brexit.

The party leader will tell the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, that the Tories’ lack of an industrial plan has “sold out” the country’s makers and he will promise Labour’s policies will “drive an industrial renaissance”.

DGR I don't want that either, my petition just said "Parliament should vote to form a Government of National Unity."
But now it's there, they won't allow any similar petitions, so it's the only one available...

Told you

www.thenational.scot/news/16372730.what-should-we-expect-from-uk-and-scottish-governments-supreme-court-brexit-showdown/

TODAY, the UK Supreme Court will start hearing two days of evidence in one of the most crucial constitutional cases in recent Scottish history,

and possibly since the 1707 Act of Union itself. For, make no mistake, Scotland’s constitutional future and possibly the Union itself are at stake.

The UK Government’s law officers have referred Holyrood’s UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill to the court

for a ruling on whether this legislation is within devolved legislative powers.

Scottish Parliament Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh said it wasn’t but MSPs said it was by 94 votes to 30.

For sake of convenience we’ll call the two sides Scotland and Westminster. In simple terms, the latter wants the right to grab powers that should be

coming back to Scotland when the UK exits the European Union.

WHO WILL BE THE KEY PLAYERS?

IN football terms, for Scotland, the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC will be the team captain and main defender. Westminster’s case will most likely be

put by an English QC acting for the Attorney General, the Rt Hon Geoffrey Cox QC, who may take the case himself. Its main striker is set to be the Advocate

General for Scotland, Lord Keen of Elie QC, who as Richard Keen was chairman of the Scottish Conservatives.

HOW WILL IT PLAY OUT?

WESTMINSTER goes first, then the Lord Advocate will set out his response, as we reported in The National yesterday. Law officers for the Welsh Assembly

and the Attorney General for Northern Ireland both back Scotland and will have a say.

WHEN CAN WE EXPECT A DECISION?

AS the National revealed yesterday, Wolffe will argue that the Scottish bill is not subject to review at common law. If that is accepted, the case will collapse overnight.

It probably won’t so a judgment is likely in October.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN THEN?

IF Scotland wins, the Tory Government faces yet more chaos – does it accept Scotland’s right to retain devolution rights or does it pass a law thwarting the Scottish

Parliament’s wishes, which they know would provoke a massive reaction across Scotland. Presiding Officer Macintosh would face calls for his resignation for getting it wrong.

If Westminster wins, expect more Tory sneers and jeers. You know how those play in Scotland.

The National will bring you extensive coverage over the next two days as we believe our readers can grasp the complex issues and decide on matters for themselves.

We expect other newspapers not to do so.

www.thenational.scot/news/16373792.supreme-court-hearing-on-bill-to-oppose-power-grab-gets-under-way/

THE crucial constitutional case in which the Westminster Government is challenging the Scottish Parliament’s Continuity Bill got under way this morning at the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) in London.

The move isan attempt to grab back powers that are returning from the European Union afterBrexit, and that the Continuity Bill would ensure return to Scotland.

Lord Keen of Elie QC, the Advocate General for Scotlandandformer Scottish Conservative chairman, made the initial submission on behalf of himself and the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland, James Wolffe QC will later present the submissions on behalf of the Scottish Parliament.

For sake of consistency in our own text we will refer to the UK law officers and the UK Government as Westminster, the Scottish Parliament as Holyrood and the Continuity Bill as the Scottish Bill

– as it is called by Lord Keen – and the EU Withdrawal Act as the UK Act, again as referred to by the Advocate General. All other descriptions are verbatim from the court.

Seven Supreme Court justices are hearing the case brought by Westminster against Holyrood. They are led by Lady Hale, the UKSC President, and include two Scottish judges, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge.

In brief, they are being asked to decide whether the Scottish Bill is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

There are, however, several complex issues of law at stake in this, the first case of its kind involving Westminster against Holyrood.

Earlier this morning the UK law officers published their written submission to the UKSC, a week after Scotland’s Lord Advocate did so on behalf of Holyrood. The Welsh and Northern Irish law officers

also published their submission a week ago, backing the Scottish case. A key element of the latest written submission stated: “The Scottish Bill establishes a new and far-reaching legal framework in

Scotland derived from, and relating to, the EU and EU law. It legislates as if the European Communities Act no longer applied, for a context in which there is a new relationship between the UK and the EU,

but without any understanding of what the nature of that new relationship is to be or how it is to be given effect in domestic law.

“The new architecture the Scottish Bill purports to create in particular is that of a new and substantial body of Scots law (as opposed to EU law) and power to fix and modify that body of law.

“The Scottish Bill purports to adopt powers to continue to give effect to EU law, requires the Scottish Ministers to have regard to EU law in certain areas after withdrawal including subsequent changes in that law,

and to restrict the ability of UK Ministers to legislate (s.17).

“It is an Act of the Scottish Parliament of unparalleled scope and seeks to create a broad framework for current and future law derived from the EU, at a time when, and in a context where,

the future relationship of the UK and the EU remains under negotiation and in transition.”

Later in the written statement is the nub of Westminster’s case: “The importance of adopting a consistent approach to the effect of withdrawal across the UK as a whole is underlined both by the existence

and detail of the UK Bill, and the close but not exact parallels adopted in the Scottish Bill.

“Whatever the final terms of the UK Bill, it is unquestionable that [the UK]Parliament will legislate for the effects of withdrawal precisely because it is a matter of major constitutional importance in which

the UK as a whole has an interest.

"In simple terms: legislation addressing the effect of withdrawal from the EU, in particular making provision for the continued application of established law in areas currently within the competence of the EU,

is a matter for Parliament and not the devolved legislatures.”

In his opening remarks, Lord Keen said the Scottish Bill “creates a separate and novel body of law” and “fundamentally undermines” the core purpose of the UK Act.

The Lord Advocate is expected to argue that Westminster is "wrong"in its submissions.

The case continues and two days have been set aside for the UK Supreme Court to hear evidence.

(last two posts from me are complete articles. CBA to nicely format).