Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Beechey]

 

 

I'm astounded these two are so close. Can't see who would prefer dropping out with absolutely nothing in place rather than extending further.

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I read that and that is not legal advice, that's the opinion of a man that wrote possibly the vaguest Article in any European Union treaty, and now the fact that it is so vague is coming back to bite everyone. If A50 was reversible, there could be a subsection in the Article stating it was, instead it says:

 

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

It's unambiguous. There's not really any wriggle room there, the State must leave after 2 years unless unanimously decided against, as it states. No mention in the Treaty that it is reversible, so unless an EU Court rules otherwise and the Treaty is altered, that is what the UK and EU must go off.

 

 

While Britain must negotiate an exit by March 2019, the Article 50 letter only states an “intention” to withdraw, Kerr said. European legal experts and figures including EU President Donald Tusk and European Parliament President Antonio Tajani have all indicated the U.K. can change its mind, and would be welcomed back.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-09/britons-can-still-reverse-brexit-article-50-architect-says

 

rticle 50 emerged 15 years ago, in a convention of 200 parliamentarians from all the countries who then were members of, or were then negotiating to join, the EU. I was their Secretary-General. One of their concerns was to demonstrate that the Union was a voluntary partnership of sovereign nation-states, based on treaties between states, not the incipient super-state of Eurosceptic nightmares.

Including an Article setting out a procedure for orderly divorce was one of several ways of underlining the voluntary nature of the Union, and I was its author. I'm certain no-one dreamed that in 2017, a member state would trigger the procedure, as Mrs May did on 29 March this year. But now that we're in the procedure, it's important to understand it; and I am concerned that some aspects of the Article seem to me rather inadequately reflected, or indeed misinterpreted, in our current public debate. This is the argument I made in a speech hosted by the Open Britain campaign today.

First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, May's letter was only a notification of the UK's "intention" to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don't have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don't want to.

 

The clause that says that "once we're out, we're out" says just that, and only that. If we had wanted an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.

That has subsequently been confirmed by formidable legal experts. Let me cite just two. Jean-Claude Piris, Legal Counsel to the Council in my Convention days, is clear that “even after triggering Article 50, and notifying the EU of its intention to leave, there is no legal obstacle to the UK changing its mind." Sir David Edward, UK Judge in the European Court of Justice when the Article was drafted, says the same.

The government gives the impression that the Rubicon has been crossed, but it refuses to publish the legal advice they have received on the subject. I think we know why. The government has been careful not to say that we could not take back May's letter, because it knows that we could if we wanted to. The fact is that a political decision has been made, in this country, to maintain that there can be no going back. Actually, the country still has a free choice about whether to proceed. As new facts emerge, people are entitled to take a different view. And there's nothing in Article 50 to stop them. I think the British people have the right to know this – they should not be misled.

Supposing we were to exercise our right to withdraw May's letter, how would leaders across the Channel react? We know from what they have said: they would applaud. Let me cite a couple of Presidents. “If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.” That's Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament. “It is in fact up to London how this will end: with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.” That's Donald Tusk, President of the European Council. Or take the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar: “The door remains open for the UK to stay in the EU." Yes. It does. And President Macron has said the same.

Most EU leaders think Brexit would be a disaster, worst for us, but bad for all. Most believe that, in a world of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, of Daesh and Islamic State, of Asian competition, of climate change and migration misery, Europe should stick together and work together. If we were to change our minds, Putin and Trump would be disappointed, but our near neighbours, and our true friends across the Atlantic and in the Commonwealth, would cheer. I think the country should know that.

My second concern is less fundamental, but I am uneasy that the country isn't being told much about the possibility of taking more time. I don't know why May was in such a rush to send her letter in March, before her Cabinet had an agreed plan. And I don't know why both government and Opposition now seem to discount the possibility of our seeking an extension. If, for example, we were to need time for Parliament to consider a final deal, or to check that the country, having seen the facts emerge during the negotiation process, still wanted to Leave, I do not see any of 27 democracies denying us the chance to consult the people.

My last point can be briefly put. I think the country should be aware of one big difference between, on the one hand, negotiating for accession, and, on the other, drawing back from secession: in the former, there's a price to pay; in the latter, there isn't. While we're in, we're in; and there would be no price to pay if we were to decide to stay in. But if we later decided to apply from outside, to return, the budget rebate would have gone.

My conclusions are simple. The national debate about Brexit should take account of the facts that our Article 50 letter could be withdrawn without cost or difficulty, legal or political. While still in, we also have the option of stopping the clock, in order to consult the people again. But once out, there is no easy way back in. All these facts will still be relevant when Parliament next autumn gets the chance, as it must, to assess the outcome of the negotiations.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/i-wrote-article-50-and-i-know-government-can-reverse-brexit-if-it-wants

[davieG]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm going to refer to Webbo as Napoleon from now on 

Known colloquially as Nappy 

[Webbo]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm going to refer to Webbo as Napoleon from now on 

Sir will be just fine.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Tbf it's why I've always preferred two questions as it would feel fairer to leavers:

 

Q1- accept the deal or not accept the deal?

 

If don't accept wins then

 

Q2- leave with no deal or remain?

 

I think we both know that however you phrase the question a no deal Brexit is unlikely to win. If a no deal Brexit had been the option in the last referendum we wouldn't be leaving. Denying this is where Brexiteers are dishonest.

I still don't want no deal, very few leavers do, most seem to want a proper Brexit though, I'm having to come to terms now with the belief that an ultra-soft Brexit is still better than no Brexit as it least it takes us out of things like the CFP.

 

If we were going to go down the road of more referenda though the first question that would need to be asked is "Should the government ignore the result of the 2016 EU referendum?" because that's what would be happening if they need to work it so it can end up with us staying in.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Justine Greening is a disgrace, if she didn't want go support the manifesto she should have stepped down. 

 

Why should we listen to calls for a second referendum from people who by definition don't accept the results of referendums in the first place? 

I agree with your sentiment, however, I think we need some honesty in politics. 

If we box MPs in on either side of the argument and allow them to lurk in the background we end up with this halfway house compromise bullshit brexit. We need to draw a line in the sand, allow MPs to be open and frank and hold this awful government to account. I don’t agree with her as I am sure you are aware but at least she is now being honest and her constituency can vote knowing her true position. 

We cant win the debate if we don’t know who we are up against.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I agree with your sentiment, however, I think we need some honesty in politics. 

If we box MPs in on either side of the argument and allow them to lurk in the background we end up with this halfway house compromise bullshit brexit. We need to draw a line in the sand, allow MPs to be open and frank and hold this awful government to account. I don’t agree with her as I am sure you are aware but at least she is now being honest and her constituency can vote knowing her true position. 

We cant win the debate if we don’t know who we are up against.

This is spot on.

 

I think we need more of this. We need to know what those that supposedly represent us really think, then we can vote on that basis.

 

At the minute there are too many politicians who seem to change their mind with whatever the current popular feeling is, Corbyn being a prime example. 

[breadandcheese]

A second referendum is a political impossibility.  Theresa May has always believed that the country's interests are best served remaining in the EU, but is trying to respect the referendum result. 

 

So to run a second referendum would put her in a politically impossible position.  She (and presumably the bulk of her government) would recampaign for remain, basically arguing against all their proposals. It is absurd.

 

 

Edited 16 July 2018 by breadandcheese

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

I read that and that is not legal advice, that's the opinion of a man that wrote possibly the vaguest Article in any European Union treaty, and now the fact that it is so vague is coming back to bite everyone. If A50 was reversible, there could be a subsection in the Article stating it was, instead it says:

 

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

It's unambiguous. There's not really any wriggle room there, the State must leave after 2 years unless unanimously decided against, as it states. No mention in the Treaty that it is reversible, so unless an EU Court rules otherwise and the Treaty is altered, that is what the UK and EU must go off.

 

 

On 13/10/2017 at 12:00, Alf Bentley said:

 

Did TM confirm that? I wrote to my MP (Jon Ashworth) about the option to rescind about 9 months ago. He referred the question on to David Davis, who avoided answering the question in his reply, just banging on about the will of the people at the referendum.

 

The balance of legal opinion did always seem to be that the UK did have an option to rescind its notice to leave, provided that happened before March 2019. If there was the political will, I'm sure that a means would be found. The problem for Remainers is that there will NOT be any political will to rescind unless there's a major shift in public opinion against Brexit - something that certainly hasn't happened yet.

 

Given that most people only have a superficial interest in politics, public opinion will only shift against Brexit if things look truly disastrous: no deal on the table, major economic problems such as mass job losses or the prospect of flights being grounded, lots of people dying in hospitals/care homes etc. Even if such a dramatically adverse situation arises, the public might turn on the EU rather than on Brexit. If any damage is more minor (poorish deal on table, a few firms relocating abroad, a bit of a slide in sterling), most people will maintain the current British "fair play" attitude of accepting the referendum result, even if they voted Remain or voted Leave and now think they might have made a mistake.

 

As I understand it, there's been no significant change in the position since we discussed this last year: whether it would be legal to revoke has not been settled, but the prevailing opinion is that it would be.

Here are 2 Law Professors arguing the 2 sides....but note that the one claiming we could not revoke unilaterally only claims that the EU would need to agree - and accepts that his is a minority opinion: 

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/01/can-article-50-notice-of-withdrawal.html

 

A Brexit Minister in the Lords had to publicly apologise for wrongly claiming that revocation was impossible (scroll down to 15:34): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/20/brexit-bill-voters-will-go-bananas-if-uk-offers-40bn-to-eu-former-tory-minister-warns-may-ahead-of-key-meeting-politics-live

 

A case for the legality of revocation was brought in Dublin, but the case was not settled due to it being hypothetical, if I'm remembering rightly.

 

As mentioned above, 15 months ago I wrote to my MP about this. He referred my question to David Davis and I got an official reply from Robin Walker MP, Davis' deputy at the Brexit Dept. The file is too large for me to post (DK if I could send by PM?). The letter talks about the govt intending to "respect the will of the people", it being "a matter of firm policy" that the UK will not revoke and there being "no precedent". But it studiously avoids answering my question as to whether it is a legal possibility.

 

Surely, if it was not a legal possibility, the letter would have said that? Surely, a Brexit Minister would not have apologised in the Lords for claiming it could not be revoked? Surely, Law Professors would not be arguing about this, with the majority believing that revocation IS a legal possibility - even without the EU agreeing to it?

 

I'm not suggesting that it's about to happen. I doubt that a UK govt would try to revoke unless it was confident that the public mood had shifted decisively against Brexit (hasn't happened yet), and probably after a general election or 2nd referendum. It is also not certain that revocation would be possible, even if most experts believe it is. The majority view, however, is that the UK could revoke even without the EU being able to contest it. Of course, it might extract a political price for all the time and money spent on Brexit.... If the UK did try to revoke, irony of ironies, it would the ECJ that would ultimately decide whether this was legally possible. Imagine what Brexiteers would make of that? 

 

 

Edited 16 July 2018 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

58 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I agree with your sentiment, however, I think we need some honesty in politics. 

If we box MPs in on either side of the argument and allow them to lurk in the background we end up with this halfway house compromise bullshit brexit. We need to draw a line in the sand, allow MPs to be open and frank and hold this awful government to account. I don’t agree with her as I am sure you are aware but at least she is now being honest and her constituency can vote knowing her true position. 

We cant win the debate if we don’t know who we are up against.

The time for honesty was in the General Election, if people like Soubry, Morgan and Greening can't get behind the central core of what the Tory party was representing they should have stepped down.

 

This can't ever happen again, a political party has to be in a position where it can implement it's manifesto, we can't have a situation where the MP's of a party openly campaign and vote against their own government but also then stand on that policy to the voters.

 

Will the next manifesto say "This is our policy but we need a majority of xx to carry it out as we've got xx amount of MP's who won't vote for it"? It won't, but it probably should.

Edited 16 July 2018 by MattP

[Buce]

 

Tony Blair speaks out again:

"In any rational world, and I understand that is a big caveat in today’s politics, this would go back to the people for resolution.
It would not be a re-run of the 2016 referendum. Two major things have changed since then. Our quantum of knowledge about the issue and particularly about the consequences of leaving the single market and customs union is vastly enlarged. And there is fundamental disagreement about what Brexit means between supporters of Brexit.

The question may be complicated because it really involves three choices: clean break, ‘soft’ or stay. But the complexity is not insuperable.

 

The dilemma is simply expressed: either we stay close to Europe after Brexit to minimise the economic cost, in which case we will be obliged to continue to abide by Europe’s rules; or we do a clean break Brexit in which case we will suffer substantial economic pain.

The first is a Brexit which leads to the question: what’s the point, since we will abide by rules over which we have lost our say, a somewhat weird way of ‘taking back control’.

The second is a Brexit which leads to the question: what’s the price?

For two years the government has tried to pretend that we could have our cake and eat it: that Europe would somehow change the rules of the single market, which we helped shape, and allow us frictionless trade with freedom to diverge where we want to.

This is and always was a non-starter.

The Chequers cabinet summit and the white paper were the first serious attempt to choose and resolve the dilemma.

 

A genuine ‘soft’ Brexit would obviously be less damaging than a hard Brexit, though it would highlight the ‘what’s the point’ nature of this choice. But this Brexit is just mush.

It is not making the best of a bad job. It is the worst of both worlds. This is where True remainers and true leavers make common cause.

 

By excluding services, the government is prepared to do significant and possibly irreparable damage to the UK service sector which is the bulk of our economy, and where unlike the goods sector, we presently have a large surplus in European trade. Particularly for the financial service and tech sectors, where Britain is dominant in Europe, we now know from those active in those sectors that exclusion from the Single Market is going to result in job losses and economic cost which will impact output and revenue considerably.

 

The Brexiteers have a long term vision for Britain which may be heavily contested but is nonetheless a genuine new direction for the country. It involves Britain leaving Europe altogether, striking a new economic and political path and is a vision which only makes sense if we market ourselves as ‘not Europe’.

[The Brexiters’] ‘clean break’ Brexit means not only a new relationship between Britain and Europe but a new relationship between Britain and itself. It is not anti globalisation or anti immigration. On the contrary, it sees Britain as a global player, but free to make its own decisions without the constraints of the single market and customs union.

Unlike others, I don’t regard this vision as dystopian, cruel or necessarily unworkable. If Britain were prepared to follow the logic of it through to its ultimate realisation, it is at least a version of our future worth debating, though one I would profoundly disagree with as, I suspect, would the majority of British people.

The problem is this vision was sold, in the context of Brexit, as short term painless and with substantial immediate gains like extra money for the NHS, and the most appealing element for many of the Brexit voters especially in the north of England was that Brexit would slash immigration and put a brake on globalisation.

What has now become apparent is that, for sure, short term and this may mean a period of several years, this was a false prospectus. In the near future a ‘clean break Brexit’ involves economic disruption, the immediate result is a £40bn bill not a £350m a week NHS boost, we need most of the European migrants, and a hard border in Ireland poses risks both to the UK and the peace process."

 

 

Edited 16 July 2018 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

While I agree with most of Blair's comments, I'm not sure what purpose his intervention serves - beyond boosting his planet-sized, non-deflatable ego and irritating Brexit voters.

 

If anyone were capable of changing minds on the Brexit side, it certainly wouldn't be Blair. They'd see him as the epitome of the much-hated "liberal establishment".

Pretty much the only people who'd listen to Blair would be people who are already convinced Remainers.

 

It's not likely to encourage further flexibility by the Corbyn leadership, either - more like the opposite. I bet that fervent Brexiteers are delighted at his intervention!

[Guest MattP]

Well that kills the Chequers deal given one of them means the EU has to collect customs tariffs for us.

 

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well that kills the Chequers deal given one of them means the EU has to collect customs tariffs for us.

 

 

Maybe - or might just be a move to ensure May survives this week and makes it to and through the summer recess.

 

She could accept the ERG amendments, then lose them in negotiations with the EU, then come back with whatever she negotiates and dare her opponents to vote down the deal and/or her leadership in October.

The consequences of doing so potentially being No Deal and/or a general election or another referendum.....

[Izzy]

49 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Maybe - or might just be a move to ensure May survives this week and makes it to and through the summer recess.

 

She could accept the ERG amendments, then lose them in negotiations with the EU, then come back with whatever she negotiates and dare her opponents to vote down the deal and/or her leadership in October.

The consequences of doing so potentially being No Deal and/or a general election or another referendum.....

 

[Guest MattP]

Has there ever been a more influential backbencher who has never held office than Jacob Rees-Mogg?

 

Took him 11 days to kill this off.

[Buce]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Has there ever been a more influential backbencher who has never held office than Jacob Rees-Mogg?

 

Took him 11 days to kill this off.

 

 

Jeremy Corbyn?

 

Makeweight candidate that became leader of the party and possibly the next Prime Minister.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

Has there ever been a more influential backbencher who has never held office than Jacob Rees-Mogg?

 

Took him 11 days to kill this off.

There is nothing good to be said of him.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Buce said:

Jeremy Corbyn?

 

Makeweight candidate that became leader of the party and possibly the next Prime Minister.

He had zero influence on the backbenches though, didn't change a policy or pass an amendment in all his years on them.

[Beechey]

I might despair at the state of this government and politics in general, but it's not boring at least.

[Buce]

 

Torygraph readers say May 'guilty of treason'.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/07/11/theresa-may-guilty-treason-plenty-readers-think-politicians/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1531289682

[Heathrow fox]

5 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

This is spot on.

 

I think we need more of this. We need to know what those that supposedly represent us really think, then we can vote on that basis.

 

At the minute there are too many politicians who seem to change their mind with whatever the current popular feeling is, Corbyn being a prime example. 

Corbyn is doing what he is supposed to do as leader of the opposition.Sit and watch the government make a complete hash of things.Labours 2017 manifesto was full of policies simply not allowed by law in the EU.

 

Corbyn is anti EU as it is anti

working class.His problem is that a lot of his MPs are blairite toe rags and there fore anti working class.He may aswell be leader of the Conservative party.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

He had zero influence on the backbenches though, didn't change a policy or pass an amendment in all his years on them.

JRM has made four amendments half of which will be voted down by his own party. The others leave it open for a customs union which meets the requirement of the amendments.

 

 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Tony Blair speaks out again:

"In any rational world, and I understand that is a big caveat in today’s politics, this would go back to the people for resolution.
It would not be a re-run of the 2016 referendum. Two major things have changed since then. Our quantum of knowledge about the issue and particularly about the consequences of leaving the single market and customs union is vastly enlarged. And there is fundamental disagreement about what Brexit means between supporters of Brexit.

The question may be complicated because it really involves three choices: clean break, ‘soft’ or stay. But the complexity is not insuperable.

 

The dilemma is simply expressed: either we stay close to Europe after Brexit to minimise the economic cost, in which case we will be obliged to continue to abide by Europe’s rules; or we do a clean break Brexit in which case we will suffer substantial economic pain.

The first is a Brexit which leads to the question: what’s the point, since we will abide by rules over which we have lost our say, a somewhat weird way of ‘taking back control’.

The second is a Brexit which leads to the question: what’s the price?

For two years the government has tried to pretend that we could have our cake and eat it: that Europe would somehow change the rules of the single market, which we helped shape, and allow us frictionless trade with freedom to diverge where we want to.

This is and always was a non-starter.

The Chequers cabinet summit and the white paper were the first serious attempt to choose and resolve the dilemma.

 

A genuine ‘soft’ Brexit would obviously be less damaging than a hard Brexit, though it would highlight the ‘what’s the point’ nature of this choice. But this Brexit is just mush.

It is not making the best of a bad job. It is the worst of both worlds. This is where True remainers and true leavers make common cause.

 

By excluding services, the government is prepared to do significant and possibly irreparable damage to the UK service sector which is the bulk of our economy, and where unlike the goods sector, we presently have a large surplus in European trade. Particularly for the financial service and tech sectors, where Britain is dominant in Europe, we now know from those active in those sectors that exclusion from the Single Market is going to result in job losses and economic cost which will impact output and revenue considerably.

 

The Brexiteers have a long term vision for Britain which may be heavily contested but is nonetheless a genuine new direction for the country. It involves Britain leaving Europe altogether, striking a new economic and political path and is a vision which only makes sense if we market ourselves as ‘not Europe’.

[The Brexiters’] ‘clean break’ Brexit means not only a new relationship between Britain and Europe but a new relationship between Britain and itself. It is not anti globalisation or anti immigration. On the contrary, it sees Britain as a global player, but free to make its own decisions without the constraints of the single market and customs union.

Unlike others, I don’t regard this vision as dystopian, cruel or necessarily unworkable. If Britain were prepared to follow the logic of it through to its ultimate realisation, it is at least a version of our future worth debating, though one I would profoundly disagree with as, I suspect, would the majority of British people.

The problem is this vision was sold, in the context of Brexit, as short term painless and with substantial immediate gains like extra money for the NHS, and the most appealing element for many of the Brexit voters especially in the north of England was that Brexit would slash immigration and put a brake on globalisation.

What has now become apparent is that, for sure, short term and this may mean a period of several years, this was a false prospectus. In the near future a ‘clean break Brexit’ involves economic disruption, the immediate result is a £40bn bill not a £350m a week NHS boost, we need most of the European migrants, and a hard border in Ireland poses risks both to the UK and the peace process."

 

 

 

Tony Blair! The greatest political liar of all time; the man with the wisdom of a fool.

[Guest]

The Tories aren't just breaking into two camps, they're smashing into a million smithereens.