Brexit

[Rob C]

1...So? O'Toole is an Irishman with a particular political standpoint. His own country has benefitted hugely from EU membership, with a vast inward flow of money.

2...He's a literary editor; what ability or knowledge he has to comment on politics or economics is rather unclear.

Jeremy

1.  But the point you just made, surely, is that it suited Ireland very well indeed (membership). Why not the UK too? I saw no gain in throwing away the large market (client) that we have, right on the doorstep.

Just tonight on the Sky News business spot, the complaint was being made of the acute shortage of construction workers in the UK, and how a large percentage, especially in London and the south, is made up of foreign workers. (And London was solidly in favour of Remain!) The boss man speaking as a guest indicated that the problem was partly of perception: building trades were looked down upon as not being good enough for many Brits to soil their dainty hands with, that recruits to the industry could not be found, exactly the reason why those immigrants doing those jobs are here: our own prefer unemployment to working beneath their dignity. And it's not new: Irish navvies built much of England's and Scotland's infrastucture a century ago.

It's no different in Mallorca: the huge motorway extension being built during the 2004 -08 period was full of north Africans doing labouring work no Mallorquin wanted to touch; ditto the housebuilding industry on the island and the farming industry around Sa Pobla, where most of the spuds are grown: the town is now more visibly Moroccan than Mallorquin. House prices plummeted. I think few went home after the motorway was finished.

As I see it unfold this week, looks like Mrs M will be dancing at the end of Mr T's string. Smile as she will, the reality lies with the money, as always.

I think the quoted article rang very true indeed; in fact, it was too kind, in that it ignored xenophobia, huge illiteracy problems and all of the rest of the facts that go to creating the fabric of a voting public.

I wish it were different, quite apart from the impact it may have on my own personal position.

2.  If he hasn't the qualifications to forming a reasoned judgement, what better qualifications do you imagine the guy down the factory floor or in the pub has to form judgement on the same issue?

Rob

[jeremyrh]

1.  But the point you just made, surely, is that it suited Ireland very well indeed (membership). Why not the UK too? I saw no gain in throwing away the large market (client) that we have, right on the doorstep.

Indeed not, but the voters were shamefully misled and will now have to suffer the consequences of their foolishness.

[Manoli]

So? O'Toole is an Irishman ... a literary editor; what ability or knowledge he has to comment on politics or economics is rather unclear.

I suspect that you could reasonably apply that line of argument to a sizeable proportion of the voting public.

[Manoli]

Only parliament can trigger Brexit. But can it then reverse the process?

The supreme court assumed – for no better reason than counsel on both sides agreed – that triggering article 50 was irrevocable. But the judges in the majority went out of their way to state that they did not necessarily agree with this assumption, which had not been argued, and one dissenting judge described it as “possibly controversial”. So here is the great remaining, unresolved question: does article 50 start an inexorable Brexit from which the UK cannot withdraw, or might another parliament repeal May’s great repeal act in the future, before we have actually left?

Op-ed piece, in Jeremy's (kikashi) favourite rag, by Geoffrey Robertson QC (and, yes, for those who don't know him, he is another heavyweight).

[Jeremy Roussak]

Only parliament can trigger Brexit. But can it then reverse the process?

Op-ed piece, in Jeremy's (kikashi) favourite rag, by Geoffrey Robinson QC (and, yes, for those who don't know him, he is another heavyweight).

The article is bizarre and it's hard to believe that it was actually written by Robertson QC (not Robinson).

It confuses May's "great repeal bill" with the bill that is, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, necessary to allow he to invoke Article 50. The great repeal bill was always going to be a "fully-fledged piece of legislation": there was never any suggestion that it be otherwise. The assertion that "The supreme court decision is clear: parliamentary sovereignty means that we cannot leave Europe without parliamentary passage of the great repeal bill" is simply wrong. They are fundamentally different concepts.

Similarly, no reasonable reading of Article 50 (which I've posted in full earlier in this thread) leads to any conclusion other than that notice given under it is irrevocable. The date of leaving can be deferred if the decision is made unanimously; but nothing in the wording suggests that it can be deferred indefinitely, or if it could, what the status would be of the country which had given notice.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

1.  But the point you just made, surely, is that it suited Ireland very well indeed (membership). Why not the UK too? I saw no gain in throwing away the large market (client) that we have, right on the doorstep.

As I said, Ireland was a very substantial net recipient of EU funding. The UK was not. How big a role finance played in the referendum decision is of course open to debate.

2.  If he hasn't the qualifications to forming a reasoned judgement, what better qualifications do you imagine the guy down the factory floor or in the pub has to form judgement on the same issue?

None at all. That's why, in common with a great many others, I think the referendum was a Bad Thing, as indeed are referenda in general. The issues surrounding our membership of the EU are hugely complex. I have little enough confidence in elected MPs' decision-making abilities, and none at all in those of my fellow subjects. Nevertheless, Parliament decided that a referendum should be held; it was; and Parliament must (or at least ought) therefore to respect the result and the Government must work to implement it in the most favourable way.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...I have little enough confidence in elected MPs' decision-making abilities, and none at all in those of my fellow subjects..

Interesting view, Jeremy. Seems to negate the very essence of democracy. You seem to be giving at least some, albeit minimal, credit to elected representatives, and yet they are elected by those with "no decision-making abilities." A paradox? Are enlightened monarchies or benevolent dictatorships our only chance then?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

But that came as part of working, didn't it? You were paying income tax so you get the benefits...

Nope.

Did not work, did not pay taxes. Just rented an apartment. That was the only paper they asked for in order to qualify for medical coverage. Had a surgery in a hospital and a week-long stay there afterwords. Total amount they charged me: zero, nada.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Then it seems there are hundreds of thousands of other expats who are similarly unnecessarily concerned.

The UK government recognises this is an issue that will need to be resolved during the brexit negotiations.

I see what you are saying.

My interpretation of the above is that it is an inter-governmental thing. In other words, governments are going to go after each other's money, with no negative consequences for the people involved. If Spain is treating everyone who comes to their country and, as a minimum, rents an apartment, as covered, it is hard to imagine they would refuse medical help to the Brits only. Then again, this is clearly my speculation and things might have changed since 2000-2003 when I was there.

[Manoli]

Similarly, no reasonable reading of Article 50 (which I've posted in full earlier in this thread) leads to any conclusion other than that notice given under it is irrevocable...

It's not so much what is said, but rather what is not said. And nowhere does it explicitly state that notice under Art. 50 is irrevocable (indeed legal advice to the French Government concluded that it was indeed revocable). Until it's tested in the CJEU, if ever, I doubt we'll have a definitive answer.

What is less clear – and what the judges have deliberately left opaque – is whether, once article 50 is triggered, it can be reversed [...] The supreme court assumed – for no better reason than counsel on both sides agreed – that triggering article 50 was irrevocable. But the judges in the majority went out of their way to state that they did not necessarily agree with this assumption, which had not been argued, and one dissenting judge described it as “possibly controversial”.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Interesting view, Jeremy. Seems to negate the very essence of democracy. You seem to be giving at least some, albeit minimal, credit to elected representatives, and yet they are elected by those with "no decision-making abilities." A paradox? Are enlightened monarchies or benevolent dictatorships our only chance then?

As Churchill said when asked for his views on democracy: it's the worst system there is, apart from all the others.

The fact that MPs are elected by (for the most part) ignorant idiots doesn't mean that they themselves all are. But whether they are or not, we bestow on them the power to make decisions on such matters by electing the buggers; and they should exercise that power.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

It's not so much what is said, but rather what is not said. And nowhere does it explicitly state that notice under Art. 50 is irrevocable (indeed legal advice to the French Government concluded that it was indeed revocable). Until it's tested in the CJEU, if ever, I doubt we'll have a definitive answer.

Hmm.

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.

"shall", in legal terminology, is mandatory; it's very different from "may", as in "may cease to apply unless the State in question changes its mind". I appreciate that the ECJ has its own way of interpreting both treaty and statute law, which is very much driven by a just outcome, or at any rate what is perceived at the time to be a just outcome. Nevertheless, I doubt that an English Judge reading that clause would regard it as doing anything other than to bestow irrevocability.

The problem with Robertson's article is that by confusing the now-published European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17 with the great repeat Act (which has yet to be published), he makes his arguments unstable. The question he poses, "might another parliament repeal May’s great repeal act in the future, before we have actually left?" is theoretical: it is vanishingly unlikely that there will be "another parliament" before we have left, given that notice is likely to be given within a couple of months and this government's term runs to 2021.

One thing in the article with which I do agree, though, is this:

It [the judgment] gave the government some relief by ruling that devolved assemblies have no right to throw spanners in the Brexit works. But its core decision is that the determination must be made by both Houses of Parliament. It is absurd for tabloids to protest about “enemies of the people” and the power of “unelected judges” – the supreme court judges were not exercising power themselves, but rather deciding which institution of government should exercise it.

It was nicely summarised by the Daily Mash.

We may find out about revocability. I suspect not, though.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So much for "referenda are bad, trust our members of the Parliament" mantra:

Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill

498 votes to 114

[Jeremy Roussak]

So much for "referenda are bad, trust our members of the Parliament" mantra:

Not at all. The decision to hold a referendum was a bad one, at least in this context. Once that decision has been taken, however, and the responsibility abrogated, MPs really have very little option. Ignoring the referendum result would inevitably lead to even greater contempt for the democratic process, and for politicians, than currently exists.

I have some little sympathy with those MPs who campaigned fervently to remain in the EU. Ought they meekly to kowtow to the electorate, or to exercise their own judgment? It arguably depends on whether they were in favour of the referendum in the first place. A principled MP (if that's not an oxymoron) who voted against holding a referendum is now, it seems to me, perfectly justified in voting against the current Bill if he believes that it is better that we remain in the EU. A pro-remain MP who was in favour of a referendum can't (again, it seems to me) now ignore the result.

MPs are not their constituents' delegates. As Burke put it, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion".

Jeremy

[Rhossydd]

The horror now is that some MPs have ignored both their own stated beliefs and those of their constituents and voted for the unknown problems of Brexit. Fueling another layer of distrust in the political process.

It's a total mess and unlikely to end well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html
I suspect the 'Prince Fredinard' moment will be seen in hindsight as when Nick Clegg supported the Tory coalition.

[Rob C]

The horror now is that some MPs have ignored both their own stated beliefs and those of their constituents and voted for the unknown problems of Brexit. Fueling another layer of distrust in the political process.

It's a total mess and unlikely to end well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html
I suspect the 'Prince Fredinard' moment will be seen in hindsight as when Nick Clegg supported the Tory coalition.

You're right: some of them represent a double hypocricy.

If there is to be a solution, then it lies in a new election, cleanly based on parties that either do or do not support Brexit. The Libs stand clear on that issue, perhaps Labout might get its act together and do the same, but the Tories are too tied up with their far-right wing to use their common sense for fear of losing the grip they currently have on power. What a bunch of assholes all round.

Then look at France: the most popular Conservative candidat, Fillon, is currently being investigated for the million euro fraud of paying his Engish wife 900,000 euros over eight years for doing nothing and his two kids for legal services as they were still students - all from public funds, of course. He's also accused of making a coupe of hundred big ones for himself as advisor... Such our representatives.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Now that the Parliament has acted, how long before Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK?

[john beardsworth]

Now that the Parliament has acted, how long before Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK?

I wouldn't bet on it being soon. Scotland's more likely, but if T May had a bad case of flatulence the SNP would claim it was an outrage against democracy and demand independence. It's what they do. But stats seem to show that any extra pro-independence support is offset by those wanting Brexit. A second indyref defeat would wipe the issue away for a generation, so my guess is the SNP will bide their time.

N Ireland's pro-EU vote really doesn't mean a vote for a united Ireland.

[Rob C]

I don't think that Brexit will encourage Scotland to go independent. It has already been made perfectly clear to Scotland from Europe that states within the EEC also face splinter movements and have no wish to encourage those by being kind to Scotland, any more than they feel inclined to give the greater UK a nice present of advantageous deals, and for the same reasons.

But of course, who would have imagined that the UK would want to deprive itself of the right to up sticks and go find work in Europe, on whim, and without a pre-arranged job? In the end, whatever peoiple say about it, rich or poor, employed or not, I think Brexit boiled down to fear and xenophobia, and really little at all to do with employment. I believe that as an island race, there has always been this protective distance in the UK nature. Hell, it exists even here in Mallorca, with many locals disliking the "rich Madrid folks with their rings, jewels and yachts..." not to mention that language itself is kept as a conscious barrier, with the official national language being Castilian but the island one(s) being akin to Catalan.This reached a crazy situation a couple of years ago when doctors from the mainland were denied jobs in Mallorca if they didn't also speak Catalan! Considering every conversation I've ever had here with a local person has been in Castilian, that's just bloody-mindedness gone mad. I don't know if the doc problem has been resolved; I do know I'm way overdue several checkups and tests, so maybe not.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not at all....

I guess, Jeremy, I am still puzzled by the discrepancy of the parliament vote (80/20) vs. the popular vote (51/49). One would expect a majority to support the referendum results (ithough many hoped otherwise), but one much closer to the popular vote split.