Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

Tories struggling to get the EU withdrawal bill through the house

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-withdrawal-bill-debate-delayed-brexit-legislation-amendments-mps-theresa-may-labour-a7998046.html

 

Business getting increasingly worried

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-talks-latest-negotiations-deadlock-business-leaders-financial-experts-eu-brussels-a7997141.html

 

Independent editorial castigating hard Brexit and making the call for a second referendum once the full facts are known.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/brexit-michel-barnier-no-deal-david-davis-theresa-may-philip-hammond-a7997436.html

 

Surely the ultimate act of taking back control is letting the people make the final decision?

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The European Union (withdrawal) bill is still going through parliament. In fact the next debate is next week I think. So far 54 amendments have been proposed and this could absolutely be one of them given that the government's own legal advice is that article 50 can be rescinded (as confirmed by TM the other day).

@Alf Bentley Has already asked but can you give me a link to Theresa May confirming A50 can be reversed?

 

That would have been pretty big news and I missed it.

 

51 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Nobody who who opposes Brexit is either a quisling, unpatriotic or a saboteur.

 

Again, you’re adopting the language of the Authoritarian regime to describe those who oppose Government policy. Why?

I know, I said that specifically when replying to your first point.

 

Opposing Brexit is fine, deliberately trying to undermine and put the government in a weaker position is however, not, it's deleterious and counter-productive.

 

6 minutes ago, davieG said:

The EU is to begin preparing for its post-Brexit trade negotiations with the UK, while refusing to discuss the matter with the British government.

An internal draft document suggests the 27 EU countries should discuss trade among themselves while officials in Brussels prepare the details.

The draft text could yet be revised.

Good to hear, starting to feel positive there is now some movement and compromise coming from the member states.

Edited 13 October 2017 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

@Alf Bentley Has already asked but can you give me a link to Theresa May confirming A50 can be reversed?

 

That would have been pretty big news and I missed it.

 

 

This (and similar) is all I can find: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-latest-stopped-secret-legal-advice-a7990716.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-reversed-strategic-error-article-50-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

 

It seems that two sources are claiming that TM has been given legal advice that the UK can rescind its notice to leave by March 2019, but is declining to reveal this legal advice - Freedom of Information requests pending.

 

I can't find any reports of TM confirming the option to rescind. She and her advisers seem to be adopting the same stance that David Davis did when I wrote: refuse to answer the question, cite the "will of the people" in the referendum and say that they've no intention of rescinding (which is a political decision, not a reply to the legal question).

 

As I said, I suspect that there is an option to rescind, but they'll continue as they are unless the shit really hits the fan and the public turns en masse against Brexit.

I don't expect that to happen, as I don't expect a massive shift in public opinion. But if it did, presumably the government would be split down the middle - and parliament might well vote to rescind Brexit.

[ajthefox]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

It does, if we can get to the second stage then I'm sure we can probably start to think about commiting to a proper figure, we need to come to some sort of arrangement on the transition to be able to come to a concensus on the divorce bill.

 

If it is Germany holding that up then it's disappointing, you would think Merkel would be more focused on trying to form a government herself than getting in the way of trying to advance negotiations.

 

It would be absolutely insane for us to release our own external reports to the World, I do have my doubts about the people bringing these cases and what their reasoning really is, it looks like sabotage and all the names mentioned in it are people who are quite open about overturning the referendum result.

 

The final vote for parliament is to either accept the deal or leave with no deal, the option to just stay in won't be up for a vote as it's now enshrined into law through the EU withdrawl bill that passed my a majority that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on March 31st 2019.

 

Do you not think there is anything to gain at all from, for example, showing reports that highlight benefits of us leaving the EU to certain sectors? 

 

Or do you just see any exchange of our information as arming the other side unnecessarily?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This (and similar) is all I can find: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-latest-stopped-secret-legal-advice-a7990716.html

http://uk.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-reversed-strategic-error-article-50-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

 

It seems that two sources are claiming that TM has been given legal advice that the UK can rescind its notice to leave by March 2019, but is declining to reveal this legal advice - Freedom of Information requests pending.

 

I can't find any reports of TM confirming the option to rescind. She and her advisers seem to be adopting the same stance that David Davis did when I wrote: refuse to answer the question, cite the "will of the people" in the referendum and say that they've no intention of rescinding (which is a political decision, not a reply to the legal question).

 

As I said, I suspect that there is an option to rescind, but they'll continue as they are unless the shit really hits the fan and the public turns en masse against Brexit.

I don't expect that to happen, as I don't expect a massive shift in public opinion. But if it did, presumably the government would be split down the middle - and parliament might well vote to rescind Brexit.

 

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

@Alf Bentley Has already asked but can you give me a link to Theresa May confirming A50 can be reversed?

 

That would have been pretty big news and I missed it.

 

I know, I said that specifically when replying to your first point.

 

Opposing Brexit is fine, delibertely trying to undermine and put the government in a weaker position is however, not, it's deleterious and counter-productive.

 

Good to hear, starting to feel positive there is now some movement and compromise coming from the member states.

Actually yep alf is right, tm didn't confirm it I've got that wrapped up with the reports of the legal advice.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

 

Do you not think there is anything to gain at all from, for example, showing reports that highlight benefits of us leaving the EU to certain sectors? 

 

Or do you just see any exchange of our information as arming the other side unnecessarily?

It would only be insane if our analysis shows brexit is bad news for us as that would arm the EU. If they said Brexit was a wonderful world of opportunity it arms us against the EU. Therefore refusing to release is an admission that the government's analysis is at least bad, and probably dire. That strengthens the argument that people need to know the facts of the analysis so that this madness can be stopped democratically. 

Edited 13 October 2017 by Guest

[davieG]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It would only be insane if our analysis shows brexit is bad news for us as that would arm the EU. If they said Brexit was a wonderful world of opportunity it arms us against the EU. Therefore refusing to release is an admission that the government's analysis is at least bad, and probably dire. That strengthens the argument that people need to know the facts of the analysis so that this madness can be stopped democratically. 

Not necessarily it could and is most likely to include a mixed bag some good some not so good. 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

38 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It would only be insane if our analysis shows brexit is bad news for us as that would arm the EU. If they said Brexit was a wonderful world of opportunity it arms us against the EU. Therefore refusing to release is an admission that the government's analysis is at least bad, and probably dire. That strengthens the argument that people need to know the facts of the analysis so that this madness can be stopped democratically. 

It could also be bad if the EU wastes it's time shooting our analysis down as part of their negotiating strategy.  So not, it is not an admission of anything.  You recall the evidence against Brexit talked about small margins of lower growth over 20 years?  There is no disastrous analysis being hidden.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I think you over-estimate the extent to which the EU are bothered about Brexit.

 

The EU seem to have simply asked the UK to honour any financial commitments that we have already made, regardless of when we will leave the EU. They're not actually asking us for a 'Divorce Bill' - This is a Daily Mailism.

 

In some instances I imagine this is totally fair and reasonable. On other occasions, probably not so.

 

So surely it's up to the UK to identify exactly where we feel this principle is unfair?

If they're not that bothered they can waive the money they reckon we owe. 

 

Seeing as the EU don't want to to tell us what we owe perhaps you could ? And while we're at it can you say how much of our share of the EU's assets amount to?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

It could also be bad if the EU wastes it's time shooting our analysis down as part of their negotiating strategy.  So not, it is not an admission of anything.  You recall the evidence against Brexit talked about small margins of lower growth over 20 years?  There is no disastrous analysis being hidden.

Small margins of lower growth adds up.to huge figures. Our economy is worth something like £1.6trillion. 1% of growth is approx £16bil. Growth is compounded like interest. A difference of 1% over a decade of worth over £200billion. 

[leicsmac]

You know, the more I hear about the discussion involving this the more it seems like this is very much like a divorce case.

 

Two bitter, grasping middle-aged folks buoyed up by an insignificant sense of self-importance arguing over who gets to keep the crockery while the kids just mess about on their smartphones and want to move the fvck on.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

David Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact

Lawyers say they will issue judicial review proceedings if Brexit secretary fails to release 50 studies of effect on industry

 

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been threatened with legal action over his refusal to publish 50 secret studies commissioned on the impact of Brexit.

Lawyers acting for the Good Law Project, which is bringing the action jointly with the Green party MEP Molly Scott Cato, wrote to the Brexit department and Treasury on Thursday demanding the release of the documents. They said that failure to do so within 14 days would result in the issue of judicial review proceedings before the high court in an attempt to force their release.

The 50 studies into the impact of Brexit on different industries were commissioned earlier this year but the government has argued that publishing them could damage the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels.

 

The 50 studies into the impact of Brexit on different industries were commissioned earlier this year but the government has argued that publishing them could damage the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels.

 

Jolyon Maugham QC, who runs the GLP, said he would not bring the case without believing it had “good, serious prospects” of succeeding. He said he had received legal advice that the government may have a duty under common law to publish the studies into the potential impact on jobs and living standards.

“It seems to me the government’s reluctance to release these studies is born not of its ability to damage our negotiating position but what’s politically expedient,” he said.

The GLP has launched a crowdfunding campaign to cover the costs of the judicial review proceedings. Maugham previously raised more than £300,000 to challenge the government’s position that article 50 could be triggered by royal prerogative, and £70,000 to launch the Dublin case to establish whether the article 50 notification could be revoked.

Scott Cato, who has made several unsuccessful attempts to force the government to release the studies, including freedom of information requests, said the rule of law required that MPs know “what Brexit really means before they formally vote for our withdrawal”.

 

“The European referendum was all about taking back control but how can our democratic representatives make decisions in our interests when the government is withholding vital information?” she said. “It has been clear for some time that the attempt to keep the Brexit impact studies secret is more to cover the government’s blushes than to enable efficient lawmaking.”

More than 120 MPs have signed a letter demanding that Davis publish the findings.

The letter, coordinated by Labour’s David Lammy and Seema Malhotra, accused the government of keeping “not only parliament but the public in the dark” and said failure to disclose the advice was preventing MPs from holding ministers to account.

The Department for Exiting the EU has refused even to confirm which sectors are covered by the impact assessments, but said the list of those industries would be published “shortly”.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/13/david-davis-faces-legal-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impact

I think I read last week that advice to ministers isn't subject to the Freedom of Information Act. You have to wonder though what kind of people would want to force our govt to reveal all our cards in the middle of a of difficult negotiation? Why aren't they making these demands of the EU?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

If they're not that bothered they can waive the money they reckon we owe. 

 

Seeing as the EU don't want to to tell us what we owe perhaps you could ? And while we're at it can you say how much of our share of the EU's assets amount to?

The EU have set out the principles of what it believes should be included in the calculation. They want us to set out what we think should be included. We would then argue over the differences, reach agreement and then you could calculate what that is worth (as some elements might be one off payments and others payments over a number of years).

 

So far, however, we've refused to tell them what we think should be included beyond saying we'll keep paying into the budget whilst we're still a member (which is pretty bloody obvious). 

 

Sorry but our negotiating position on this is ridiculous and if you took the blue tinted (or should that be red, white and blue tinted?) glasses off you'd see that.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The EU have set out the principles of what it believes should be included in the calculation. They want us to set out what we think should be included. We would then argue over the differences, reach agreement and then you could calculate what that is worth (as some elements might be one off payments and others payments over a number of years).

 

So far, however, we've refused to tell them what we think should be included beyond saying we'll keep paying into the budget whilst we're still a member (which is pretty bloody obvious). 

 

Sorry but our negotiating position on this is ridiculous and if you took the blue tinted (or should that be red, white and blue tinted?) glasses off you'd see that.

I'm self employed, when I finish decorating someone's lounge they say to me "what do I owe you". I don't reply "how much do you think?". If they've got a figure in mind then why won't they tell us? Pretending that that's normal and we're being awkward is totally disingenuous.

[davieG]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The EU have set out the principles of what it believes should be included in the calculation. They want us to set out what we think should be included. We would then argue over the differences, reach agreement and then you could calculate what that is worth (as some elements might be one off payments and others payments over a number of years).

 

So far, however, we've refused to tell them what we think should be included beyond saying we'll keep paying into the budget whilst we're still a member (which is pretty bloody obvious). 

 

Sorry but our negotiating position on this is ridiculous and if you took the blue tinted (or should that be red, white and blue tinted?) glasses off you'd see that.

If they have that information then they should know how much it involves, but then again all of their budgets have  contained significant errors maybe they don't.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm self employed, when I finish decorating someone's lounge they say to me "what do I owe you". I don't reply "how much do you think?". If they've got a figure in mind then why won't they tell us? Pretending that that's normal and we're being awkward is totally disingenuous.

If you look at their paper you might realise its a little more complicated than charging for wallpaper plus labour.

 

Jesus Christ is this honestly what I'm having to deal with 

[davieG]

Just now, toddybad said:

If you look at their paper you might realise its a little more complicated than charging for wallpaper plus labour.

 

Jesus Christ is this honestly what I'm having to deal with 

If it so complicated why do they expect us to come up with an answer if they can't

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

If you look at their paper you might realise its a little more complicated than charging for wallpaper plus labour.

 

Jesus Christ is this honestly what I'm having to deal with 

I'm sorry if we're not up to your intellectual standard. Maybe you could post an article by Owen Jones to explain why you're right?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, davieG said:

If they have that information then they should know how much it involves, but then again all of their budgets have  contained significant errors maybe they don't.

They probably did know the figure they think but putting the figures into the public domain causes all sorts of bickering about how much when actually, fundamentally, the value is irrelevant as it has to be agreed in principal based on the legal (and moral) justifications.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

If it so complicated why do they expect us to come up with an answer if they can't

Again, the value is irrelevant at this stage.

 

They could say £200 billion. Gove, Boris and MattP would fall off their chairs. But what if we are legally required to pay that much? What if the most they can hope for is £500 billion but they're only gone for the £200 billion slice they believe we can't argue with? The numbers mean nothing in isolation. It's the principles behind how they are agreed and calculated that is important.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm sorry if we're not up to your intellectual standard. Maybe you could post an article by Owen Jones to explain why you're right?

For example, on EU pensions. They've accrued whilst we're a member so we will need to pay towards them for decades to come. But should we pay pension accrued to the day we leave or to the end of the budget that we agreed? If we try and argue we shouldn't pay for some reason what about British MEPs? What if pension regulations change before pensions are payable - how will we deal with a change in EU regulations once we've left even though it affects ongoing payments? There are probably another 500 questions to be discussed just on that one issue. 

 

There will be a wealth of law, moral judgements and plain conundrums to deal with. It will not be simple. They've set out their position. We need to set out ours.

[davieG]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

They probably did know the figure they think but putting the figures into the public domain causes all sorts of bickering about how much when actually, fundamentally, the value is irrelevant as it has to be agreed in principal based on the legal (and moral) justifications.

But they're expecting us to put a figure in the public domain, what's the difference.

 

They should be , behind close doors saying what they want and then that should be justified, negotiated and agreed by both sides. They agreed figure would then fluctuate up and down depending on further levels of our involvement.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

But they're expecting us to put a figure in the public domain, what's the difference.

 

They should be , behind close doors saying what they want and then that should be justified, negotiated and agreed by both sides. They agreed figure would then fluctuate up and down depending on further levels of our involvement.

No they aren't. They have set out how they think.It should be calculated. They've simply asked us to set out our position so we can then deal with the differences. At no point have they mentioned or asked for a figure.

 

Future trade has no effect on what we need to pay towards things we've agreed to build, pensions etc. They are entirely separate issues.

Edited 13 October 2017 by Guest

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Again, the value is irrelevant at this stage.

 

They could say £200 billion. Gove, Boris and MattP would fall off their chairs. But what if we are legally required to pay that much? What if the most they can hope for is £500 billion but they're only gone for the £200 billion slice they believe we can't argue with? The numbers mean nothing in isolation. It's the principles behind how they are agreed and calculated that is important.

Somebody has got to come up with a justified figure they're running the EU they should be able to work out honestly what that figure is. You accuse the Government of being less than honest but seem to be ok with the EU being underhand.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

No they aren't. They have set out how they think.It should be calculated. They've simply asked us to set out our position so we can then deal with the differences. At no point have they mentioned or asked for a figure. 

Well if they know how it should be calculated they should be able to put a figure to that.