The Brexit process

[gosub]

 

[Leftwinger1992]

This may have already been posted, but I thought I'd share what I feel is an excellent Observer editorial on the high court ruling on Brexit and parliament. I completely agree with it. The Observer view on the high court ruling on Brexit and parliament | Observer editorial

 

[ferrelhadley]

May is pushing it through the courts and hoping like hell it gets bogged down in parliament to buy herself time to get a negotiating position sorted.

Large amounts of research and reading needed to work out what the huge legal implications will be across the country.

Like pulling a sickie to miss an exam to get more swot time.

 

[Poi E]

True, but if you look at how easily Nissan managed to get strong enough assurances from the government on their post brexit position to OK new investment it looks like we will be more susceptible to being manipulated by corporations.

Yup. Renault N were just testing the waters to see how much the government would bend over in the light of Brexit. Car plants can be shipped abroad pronto, so sticking a few billion into new robotics and tooling doesn't mean you have to hang around. Nissan will make a cool assessment of tariffs, incentives, relative labour productivity and go from there. Heck, the government probably hasn't even considered that in the future fewer people will be needed to assemble the same number of cars, so it's more like an investment in modernisation for Renault N than securing jobs in the NE.

 

[bimble]

.

 

[mauvais]

Yup. Renault N were just testing the waters to see how much the government would bend over in the light of Brexit. Car plants can be shipped abroad pronto, so sticking a few billion into new robotics and tooling doesn't mean you have to hang around. Nissan will make a cool assessment of tariffs, incentives, relative labour productivity and go from there. Heck, the government probably hasn't even considered that in the future fewer people will be needed to assemble the same number of cars, so it's more like an investment in modernisation for Renault N than securing jobs in the NE.

Plant investment is static for at least a generation of car - it's not just tooling but training and the rest. Skilled humans are still a key component in building a car. Piss about with that and you risk quality.

However pretty much any mass production car you can think of seeing on British roads is made in the EU (as well as elsewhere for other markets), with a few Japanese exceptions. This is because of punitive import tariffs. The UK government has to have promised Nissan that they'll cover any such costs for N years if any tariffs are put in place.

 

[Poi E]

Ford's small car move to lower labour countries is only going to take 2-3 years and not all to existing facilities. Plant is moved quickly these days.

 

[teqniq]

Can't say I'm particularly surprised.

Government refuses to guarantee workers' rights after Brexit

The Government has cast yet more uncertainty over whether workers will lose key employment rights after Brexit – including rules that protect employees during the takeover of British firms by foreign companies.

Ministers this week refused to say whether the Acquired Rights Directive 2001/23/EC would be incorporated into British law after Britain leaves the bloc. The EU directive requires that companies bought out by other firms safeguard jobs of the workers in the taken over firm during takeovers.

The directive is particularly relevant because foreign firms can now get knock-down price bargains on British companies because of the newly weak value of the Pound....

 

[Poi E]

Was on a call with our external counsel last week on exactly this matter. TUPE/acquired rights will go.

 

[teqniq]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

 

[bimble]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

"Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership. This is an outrage. . "

 

[andysays]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

This bit is good

Brexit campaigners in Britain reacted with anger to the idea, arguing that it would discriminate against Leave voters and that it was “an outrage”.

Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership. “This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said.

“Brexit means laws which impact the people of the UK will be created by accountable politicians in Westminster. It is totally unacceptable for certain citizens in the UK to subject themselves to laws which are created by politicians who are not accountable the British people as a whole. Discriminating against people based on their political views shows there are no depths the EU will not sink to.”

 

[SpookyFrank]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

Just read that. I'm sure the amendment will get shot down in flames.

Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership.

“This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said.

Is it an outrage? It's a suggestion, put forth by one MEP. I think some people just like being outraged. Even when they've already won, they're outraged.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I like the bit about 'accountable politicians in westminster' when team brexit is currently losing its shit over a court decision which states that accountable politicians in westminster must be given a say in triggering article 50.

 

[SpookyFrank]

And now, for balance, we'll be talking to a swivel-eyed lunatic who voted remain...

 

[bimble]

I'm outraged at her outrageous outrage.

 

[Duncan2]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

I think we are having our legs pulled there.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think we are having our legs pulled there.

in luxembourg they celebrate their equivalent of april fools day in november

 

[mojo pixy]

En France, le Beaujolais Nouveau vient d'arriver...

 

[andysays]

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said his party would oppose it, unless they were promised a second referendum on the UK's Brexit deal with EU leaders.

Several Labour MPs are also willing to vote against it, despite the Labour Party pledging not to do so... ...
For Labour, shadow minister Catherine West, former leadership contender Owen Smith and south London MP Helen Hayes all made clear they were prepared to vote against Article 50 - which begins formal exit negotiations with the EU - if amendments were not accepted.

Former Labour minister David Lammy and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner have said they would oppose Article 50. Opposition whip Thangam Debbonaire said she would also vote against it, if a vote were held imminently.

The SNP's 54 MPs may join them. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said they will not vote for anything that undermines the will of the Scottish people, and has previously said they will vote against a bill to write EU provisions into British law to prepare for Brexit.

The SDLP's three MPs will also oppose the measure.

Doesn't look as if there's enough votes there to actually block A50, but it's illuminating that most of them are to oppose on any terms, contrary to the result of the referendum.

And I suspect many/most of those named come from Remain-supporting constituencies, so don't need to worry about the potential of being voted out at the next GE.

 

[mauvais]

Why would & should they support it against the wishes of their constituents?

Or do you think their constituents place more value in respecting the national democratic will than their own interests? I doubt it. Democracy's an awkward thing of late.

 

[andysays]

Why would & should they support it against the wishes of their constituents?

Or do you think their constituents place more value in respecting the national democratic will than their own interests? I doubt it. Democracy's an awkward thing of late.

I'm not saying that they "should" do anything in particular.

But if significant numbers of MPs attempt to simply block the triggering of A50, that is likely to increase the feeling among many of those who voted for Brexit that the political elite are trying to avoid putting the wishes of the whole electorate into practice, and the political benefit from that is likely to go mostly to UKIP rather than any of the parties the blockers represent.

 

[mauvais]

Yeah, probably - certainly has its national political risks. Unless something else has changed the climate by then. As a local and direct political risk for each MP it's low though, whereas the reverse is not necessarily welcome.

 

[brogdale]

Democracy's an awkward thing of late.

repdem always was an awkward thing.
Anything specifically constructed to 'firewall' the actual wishes of the masses was bound to be riddled with contradiction...

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. 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.
Burke 1774

 

[mauvais]

repdem always was an awkward thing.
Anything specifically constructed to 'firewall' the actual wishes of the masses was bound to be riddled with contradiction...

No doubt. But one of the responses to Brexit amongst the pro-Brexit left (and elsewhere, obviously) is that we must not betray the democratic mandate. Which is reasonable in terms of both the machinery of politics, and in a carefully framed context of what Brexit is about.

However it all becomes very awkward very quickly when another democratic exercise gives birth to, say, legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. I can't imagine that's a flavour of democratic will that those same proponents are quite so keen to see prevail, and yet it presents the same problems if you don't. Fun times that we live in.

 

[andysays]

No doubt. But one of the responses to Brexit amongst the pro-Brexit left (and elsewhere, obviously) is that we must not betray the democratic mandate. Which is reasonable in terms of both the machinery of politics, and in a carefully framed context of what Brexit is about.

However it all becomes very awkward very quickly when another democratic exercise gives birth to, say, legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. I can't imagine that's a flavour of democratic will that those same proponents are quite so keen to see prevail, and yet it presents the same problems if you don't. Fun times that we live in.

In the unlikely event that a referendum proposing such a thing is

1. held
   
2. successful

then I'm sure we can discuss its implications.

In the meantime it's a bit of a red herring to throw into the current discussion.

 

[mauvais]

In the unlikely event that a referendum proposing such a thing is

1. held
   
2. successful

then I'm sure we can discuss its implications.

In the meantime it's a bit of a red herring to throw into the current discussion.

Which flavour of objection is this? That no such thing has happened anywhere, that it didn't represent what's claimed, or that it was conveniently outside the box of the democracy you hold sacred?

 

[Pickman's model]

No doubt. But one of the responses to Brexit amongst the pro-Brexit left (and elsewhere, obviously) is that we must not betray the democratic mandate. Which is reasonable in terms of both the machinery of politics, and in a carefully framed context of what Brexit is about.

However it all becomes very awkward very quickly when another democratic exercise gives birth to, say, legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. I can't imagine that's a flavour of democratic will that those same proponents are quite so keen to see prevail, and yet it presents the same problems if you don't. Fun times that we live in.

What happens if/when the view expressed one year differs from the view expressed the next?

 

[andysays]

Which flavour of objection is this? That no such thing has happened anywhere, that it didn't represent what's claimed, or that it was conveniently outside the box of the democracy you hold sacred?

My objection is mostly to your glib association of democracy with legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. Perhaps I just don't hold the majority of people in the contempt which that association suggests that you do.

 

[mauvais]

My objection is mostly to your glib association of democracy with legitimising misogyny and sexual assault. Perhaps I just don't hold the majority of people in the contempt which your suggestion suggests that you do.

Did the voters not specifically choose to elect a known misogynist? How direct a referendum do you need it to be? And what levels of contempt and empathy for that are respectively permitted and due, in your opinion?

I don't think this is particularly useful or broadly politically relevant, by the way. I just feel suddenly inclined to poke at the boundaries that some people's pro-Brexit 'sanctity of democracy' argument operates within. I can't imagine it stretches all that far. One might wonder if it stops at winning.