Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders: A Change of Mood

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 21/10/2018 17:57

A day after 700,000 people came from all over the country to march on the streets of the Capital to protest and say there needs to be another vote on what next.

Has it changed anything?

Well the mood is changing.

Former leavers are starting to have doubts. Not necessarily about leaving but certainly about how its been handled. Some have ridicilous ideas on how it should be done which are not grounded in any sort of reality. But others are starting to realise that a lot of what Remainers said, at least has some truth, in terms of the complexity and practical problems of leaving.

The EU who previoiusly have been exasperated but accomodating are starting to baton down the hatches and move to a no deal position. The EU summit in November will now no longer include the UK because progress has not been made, although we have been told this is changeable if we have a change of heart. At the summit they will talk about No Deal planning. There has been talk that the final deadline for the UK is 13th December, but there are also some saying this is optimistic and in reality its the middle of November in political terms because this is when EU countries will start committing large amounts of money to No Deal. At this point, it becomes much more difficult for leaders to justify to their own population 'wasting' money on no deal measures.

Back in the UK, the penny is starting to drop. Peston has talked about just how far away we really are from a deal. He's the first main stream journalist to say it outloud. Everyone else is still maintaining we will get a deal, when May just does not have the power in her own party to manage it. She is now reaching out to Labour to help her get a deal as its her only option left open to her now.

May has to get the budget through parliament before the EU summit - on the 1st November - and the DUP are already threatening to vote against it as leverage to get their own way on Brexit.

Tory MP Johnny Mercer is so fed up of it all, that he's come out saying that that he wouldn't vote Tory now, and its all a "complete shit show".

This apparently hasn't gone down too well with other Tories as they feel it means that its more likely to provoke a leadership challenge sooner rather than later. It has been reported that May has been effectively been put on notice and she 72 hours to sort it out. She has been called to a 1922 Committee Meeting on Wednesday to answer to backbenchers.

Up until now, its been thought that the 48 letters wouldn't be sent to Graham Brady because she would win a no confidence vote. Its now being reported that there is a creeping fear that the party would end up with a situation like Labour where they were unable to get rid of Corbyn, and if a leadership challenge was launched they would need to just get rid of her now.

Quick revision:

  1. To trigger a confidence vote 48 letters (15% of Tory MPs) need to be sent to Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 Committee.
  2. There is then a vote, and the leader needs 156 MPs (50.1%) of the vote to win or they face a leadership election.
  3. If there is no confidence vote, another one can't be called for twelve months.

There has been talk of David Davis as an interim leader, which isn't true; its just the start of another round of positioning as Tories smell the blood of a wounded leader. Johnson is also circling and isn't impressed at David Davis seemingly throwing his hat in the ring, despite previously he would just retire.

Triggering a no confidence vote, just before the EU summit around the time of the budget could be just about the worst timing possible if thats the case...

... it would leave British politics in complete chaos and the EU will have effectively run out of time and will have to commit themselves to No Deal anyway.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
43
DGRossetti · 25/10/2018 15:53

In what wonderland can NDAs be used to hide CRIMINAL wrongdoing ?

Apparently, some NDAs prevent telling the police they exist - even under caution. I have no idea whether this is true or not. What I would like (in fact I feel a letter to my MP coming up) is a black and white statement that in the event of a police interview under caution, disclosing the presence of an NDA voids any clauses that NDA may have about not disclosing the existence of the NDA to the police.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority issued this back in March ....

Warning notice
Use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)
Issued on 12 March 2018

Our concerns
We recognise that NDAs, including with employees, can legitimately be used
to protect commercial interests and confidentiality and in some
circumstances, to protect reputation. Such agreements can operate to the
mutual benefit of both parties. This warning notice, and the Handbook,
should not be taken to prohibit the use of NDAs. However, we are concerned
to ensure that you do not:

use NDAs in circumstances in which the subject of the NDA may, as a result
of the use of the NDA feel unable to notify the SRA or other regulators or
law enforcement agencies of conduct which might otherwise be reportable
fail to notify the SRA of misconduct, or a serious breach of our
regulatory requirements, by any person or firm: including wrongdoing by
the firm, or harassment or other misconduct towards others such as
employees or clients
use NDAs as a means of improperly threatening litigation or other adverse
consequences, or otherwise exerting inappropriate influence over people
not to make disclosures which are protected by statute, or reportable to
regulators or law enforcement agencies.
This warning notice provides a reminder of some of the key issues and
risks that you should be aware of.

Status
Whilst this guidance does not form part of the SRA Handbook, we may have
regard to it when exercising our regulatory functions. This warning notice
is additional to previous warning notices and does not replace them.

Who is this guidance relevant to?
This guidance is relevant to everyone we regulate, and in particular:

managers and employees of law firms
those responsible for managing human resources and complaints in law firms
practitioners advising clients on the use of NDAs.
This note highlights your obligations if your firm is considering an NDA
with someone who has complained. It also sets out your obligations when
advising clients on NDAs with individuals (usually the client’s current or
former partners or directors, employees or workers, collectively referred
to in this note, for ease of reference, as "employee" or "employees").

The SRA Principles
Inappropriate use of NDAs, failure to report actual or suspected
misconduct, or other wrongdoing or criminal conduct, by you or, when
acting on behalf of a client, improperly proposing, or exerting
inappropriate influence on a third party to enter into an NDA either in an
inappropriate manner or with inappropriate content; or failure to report
wrongdoing that is subject to an NDA may put you in breach of one or more
of the SRA Principles 2011 set out below:

Principle 1: uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of
justice

Principle 2: act with integrity

Principle 3: act independently

Principle 6: behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in
you and in the provision of legal services

Principle 7: comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal
with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative
manner

Principle 8: run your business or carry out your role in the business
effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial
and risk management principles.

The SRA mandatory outcomes
You should have regard to specific outcomes under the SRA Code of Conduct
2011:

Outcome (10.3): you notify the SRA promptly of…serious failure to comply
with or achieve the Principles, rules, outcomes and other requirements of
the Handbook

Outcome (10.4): you report to the SRA promptly, serious misconduct by any
person or firm authorised by the SRA, or any employee, manager or owner of
any such firm

Outcome (10.7): you do not attempt to prevent anyone from providing
information to the SRA or the Legal Ombudsman

Outcome (11.1): you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in
either your professional or personal capacity.

Our expectations
We consider that NDAs would be improperly used if you sought to:

use an NDA as a means of preventing, or seeking to impede or deter, a
person from:
reporting misconduct, or a serious breach of our regulatory requirements
to us, or making an equivalent report to any other body responsible for
supervising or regulating the matters in question
making a protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act
1998
reporting an offence to a law enforcement agency
co-operating with a criminal investigation or prosecution.

use an NDA to influence the substance of such a report, disclosure or
co-operation
use an NDA as a means of improperly threatening litigation against, or
otherwise seeking improperly to influence, an individual in order to
prevent or deter or influence a proper disclosure
prevent someone who has entered into an NDA from keeping or receiving a
copy.
NDAs or other settlement terms must not stipulate, and the person expected
to agree the NDA must not be given the impression, that reporting or
disclosure as set out above is prohibited. It may be appropriate for the
NDA itself to be clear about what disclosures are not prohibited by the
NDA.

Where you find, or have grounds to believe, that a member of your firm has
or may have committed a serious breach of our requirements, we expect you
to report such findings or concerns to us. We may wish to investigate and
we have statutory powers that are not available to you. Failure to report
may be a failure to achieve Outcomes 10.3 or 10.4 and of one or more SRA
Principles.

Any attempt to prevent a person from complaining or providing information
to us will be a failure to achieve Outcome 10.7. Indicative Behaviour
(10.11) cites, by way of example, entering into an agreement which would
attempt to preclude us from investigating any actual or potential
complaint or allegation of professional misconduct. A practitioner who
proposes or uses an NDA or behaves in some other way that is in breach of
Outcome 10.7 is at risk of disciplinary action.

You may also be at risk if you use improper threats of litigation or
improperly influence a party by reference to other adverse consequences of
making such report or disclosure.

Inappropriate or disproportionate threats, including a threat of
defamation proceedings where such a claim is known to be unsustainable1,
may well involve serious breaches of the Principles or Code. These are
likely to breach our requirements, including Principle 1 and 6 as well as
Outcomes (10.7) and (11.1). Taking unfair advantage of an opposing party’s
lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer) is an
aggravating feature of such conduct (see Indicative Behaviour 11.7).

Where the employee is not represented, your obligations will be
heightened, to ensure that there is no abuse of position, or unfair
advantage taken.

If the agreement is or forms part of a settlement agreement under the
Employment Rights Act 1996, you should ensure that you are aware of the
requirements governing those agreements, including for the employee to be
in receipt of independent advice. You will also need to ensure that the
NDA does not include clauses known to be unenforceable.

Enforcement action
Failure to comply with this warning notice may lead to disciplinary
action.

1tisILeClerc · 25/10/2018 15:54

{We now have no ruling in law which can be referenced in future because the Lord took it into his own hands at this stage.}
There is always next time, although as I think RTB is alluding to, a ruling which could unlock some other NDAs could be handy in the near future.
SKY reporting (probably elsewhere) that second week of November could be very revealing with announcements of full ahead no deal although a Raab spin suggesting the EU may be intransigent. Also Calais wanting to shift customs activities to other ports, as if it is the French 'causing' the problem.

prettybird · 25/10/2018 15:54

One wonders if Lord Hain has himself involved anyone in NDAs Hmm choosing my words very carefully Wink

DGRossetti · 25/10/2018 15:55

I suspect the biggest thing to come of this will be some sort of attempt to regulate parliamentary privilege. Something bad guys have wanted for centuries.

DGRossetti · 25/10/2018 15:57

There is always next time, although as I think RTB is alluding to, a ruling which could unlock some other NDAs could be handy in the near future.

NDAs cannot be used to prevent evidence of criminal wrongdoing being placed before the courts.

That's how it should be. I have a nasty feeling it isn't. Moreover I have a nasty feeling that we would never know anyway.

OlennasWimple · 25/10/2018 16:05

Any attempt to regulate Parliamentary privilege would need the agreement of Parliament to take it through - and we don't exactly have a united parliament or a party with a large majority to force through unpopular change...

prettybird · 25/10/2018 16:14

Like DGR , I have an uncomfortable feeling that some not all NDAs have been written so tightly that even reporting what was included to the police (let alone an MP) would be a breach of the NDA ShockAngry

It might be unethical and against the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority Code of Practice - but if you're not allowed to tell anyone, how would they ever find out? Confused

DGRossetti · 25/10/2018 16:14

Any attempt to regulate Parliamentary privilege would need the agreement of Parliament to take it through - and we don't exactly have a united parliament or a party with a large majority to force through unpopular change..

Who said it would be unpopular ? If the past two and a half years have taught us nothing, it's surely that "popular" can be manipulated into whatever suits the agenda.

Anyway, SOP for these things would be a "voluntary code" at first. After all, unlike the scummy general public, who need laws, courts and prisons, MPs are entirely trustworthy, and only need a few guidelines - ideally policed by other MPs.

DGRossetti · 25/10/2018 16:22

Like DGR , I have an uncomfortable feeling that some not all NDAs have been written so tightly that even reporting what was included to the police (let alone an MP) would be a breach of the NDA.

Given that in this case the NDA can be assumed to involve people who might be considered vulnerable at best, it's also possible that they have been cowed into believing they can't disclose the existence of an NDA.

Traditionally, it used to be the case that a contract signed under duress was considered invalid, and could not be enforced. Presumably that's no longer the case, or a situation where a lone individual is arrayed against some of the most expensive lawyers in the land would count as intimidatory - and certain duress to sign.

It might be unethical and against the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority Code of Practice - but if you're not allowed to tell anyone, how would they ever find out?

To be honest, I'm not massively impressed with an awful lot of these so called "regulatory" bodies. It's worth reminding ourselves every few seconds that they exist for the sole and exclusive benefit of their paying members. Their job is to ensure their members feel the joining fee is justified, not to champion the great unwashed.

woman11017 · 25/10/2018 16:24

@thomasbrake
Met Cressida Dick yesterday, the Met Police's senior officer. I mentioned the Vote Leave Be Leave police investigation.

Very pleased she confirmed it is underway.

People are entitled to know who broke the law during the EU Referendum.

RedToothBrush · 25/10/2018 16:33

Allie Hogkin-Brown @ alliehbnews
BBC's @colemancr on Philip Green being named in Parliament as businessman at centre of Britain's #MeToo scandal says he's v. surprised at this development - 'the judiciary will feel that parliamentary privilege shouldn't be used to undermine the rule of law'

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 25/10/2018 16:38

'the judiciary will feel that parliamentary privilege shouldn't be used to undermine the rule of law'

This is England, not the US. The judiciary can damn well do as they are told. I think they need to remember who makes the laws.

woman11017 · 25/10/2018 16:38

@PeterHain
Speaking shortly @UKHouseofLords @LordSpeaker @LabourLordsUK on the case for @peoplesvoteuk @LabPeoplesVote @OwenSmithMP

the judiciary will feel that parliamentary privilege shouldn't be used to undermine the rule of law
Hain. Confused

RedToothBrush · 25/10/2018 16:44

This is England, not the US.

Give it time.

OP posts:
Mrsr8 · 25/10/2018 17:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mrsr8 · 25/10/2018 17:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KennDodd · 25/10/2018 17:48

Momentum consultation on Brexit here.

www.anothereurope.org/vote-now-momentum-launches-brexit-consultation/

Also, letter writing campaign for 9th November to the Prime Minister demanding a People's Vote.

Please share.

woman11017 · 25/10/2018 17:55

Thank you KennDodd

RedToothBrush · 25/10/2018 17:56

I've seen suggestion that someone on NRA TV said that people should take their guns to the polling station. Now I struggled to find a source for this that seemed credible. The problem is its being widely shared anyway. So to a certain extent its irrelevant now anyway. People believe it.

Such is the mood at present. What could possibly go wrong in that environment?

OP posts:
KennDodd · 25/10/2018 17:57

And a petition about the availability of medicine. Please share. Even Leavers should sign this with full confidence that Brexit will cause no problems.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228631?fbclid=IwAR20mVxfIh589DckN53vrCi7j-8WsvHqWV9pvAPZp_hNZV4gy049WygKzLk

Icantreachthepretzels · 25/10/2018 17:58

And says a People’s Vote would be a politician’s vote to tell the people they voted the wrong way.

Please email back and point out that SHE is the politician and YOU are one of the people and it is YOU asking for a vote which SHE is refusing. That is not the definition of a 'politician's vote'. Tell her she doesn't have a leg to stand on and that her answer is part of a decline into tyranny - and that you will be keeping all correspondence with her in case there is ever an enquiry into how a disaster like brexit was allowed to happen.

KennDodd · 25/10/2018 18:00

And a petition about the availability of medicine after Brexit. Even Leavers should sign this with full confidence that Brexit will cause no problems. Please share.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228631?fbclid=IwAR20mVxfIh589DckN53vrCi7j-8WsvHqWV9pvAPZp_hNZV4gy049WygKzLk

DarlingNikita · 25/10/2018 18:01

Oh, you can only do the consultation if you're a Momentum member.

Sorry if it's thick of me not to have realised that immediately Grin

SingingBabooshkaBadly · 25/10/2018 18:02

An outrageously belated thank you for this thread to Red. Have been battling other real life stuff and that, added to losing my phone, has kept me off the thread. Had to try to catch-up fast so have only been able to skim - scary, depressing stuff.

Because it’s personal to me I have to comment on this from upthread:

I'm also loving the idea of Kent getting exactly what they voted for - serves them bloody right!

This is harsh. I live in Kent, in fact I live just a few miles from Dover. Almost 40% of the people who turned out to vote in this constituency voted to remain. I would have been one of them had I been living here at the time. It’s frankly very upsetting to hear people whose views I respect saying they ‘love the idea’ of the people of Kent suffering. I can understand ‘serves them right’ right being levelled at Leave voters, but the relishing of a whole region suffering, inevitably including remainders, is upseting. There are Leave voters everywhere, even the blessed regions that voted Remain overall. There are Remain voters everywhere. Difference is, we suffer even more by virtue of being outnumbered!