There is some sense left in the House of Commons:
Why? Let's play this out. There are just two choices available to us on Brexit if we are to leave. They are to stay in the single market, or not and to have free movement, or not. That's it. This then necessarily leaves four potential outcomes.
So we can stay in the single market and have free movement as option one. That is soft Brexit as the EU sees it. This is an available option. But hardline Tories say no.
Or we can have stay in the single market and have no free movement as option two. This is Boris Johnson's fantasy, but it is not and never will be on offer from the EU.
Options three is to be out of the single market but have free movement. No one, anywhere, is arguing for that.
Which leaves the only other viable option as alternative four, which is out of single market and no free movement. This is hard Brexit, of course.
This is the whole UK negotiating position summarised. There are massive complications arising from either of choices one or four which are the only two viable options, both of which are in my opinion still best avoided, but there are no more decision options on the table than that. And we don't even know which of those the UK is going for. The government has not said.
And because the government will not make clear its choice the only rational option available to any member of the House of Commons (and I mean any member) is to vote no to Article 50 right now. Until the option being pursued is clear then Caroline Lucas is absolutely right to be saying no to Article 50.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Wasn’t Corbyn havering around option 3 at one point? If May can’t deliver hard Brexit the Mail and Murdoch will destroy her. I doubt Labour MPs will vote against it – fear of alienating their supposed working class former supporters. A hard rains a gonna fall.
And we’re all going to suffer for it
You may be right; maybe a hard rain’s gonna fall.
But two and a bit years is a long time and the viciousness with which the brexitologists stamp on anyone expressing an opinion risks alienating more people than it subjugates.
So, eternal optimist that I am, maybe the times they are a changing.
A choice between the devil and the deep blue sea methinks on this one!!
I agree with Lucas’ stand.
But my main worry is that those who want BREXIT (or should I say THINK that they want it) seem more predisposed to vicious rhetoric and violence if they do not get their way. I find the prospect of that unbearable to be honest.
So I’d much rather that Parliament enacts article 50 and then we see what happens and hope for the painful epiphany that will come to those who THINK they want BREXIT.
Either way it’s going to be awful for everyone really.
Thank you Mr Cameron! Nice job!
Meanwhile, having skipped around some really awful journalism in the Observer today I think Nick Cohen’s piece about the Tories and populism makes some keen observations (even though his contrarian instincts still get in the way).
Mind you – William Keegan’s piece is pocket battleship debunking of much of the crap we’ve been told about Europe by the Leave campaign.
Bill Keegan is usually a bright spot
If it came to it the conservatives could simply declare they have left the eu, as there is no requirement to use article 50.
And why not make it up, anyway? The truth is optional now anyway 🙂
Be careful what you wish for, even in jest.
This opens up another garden of delusions for fools to live in, and some of them are in power.
It is also a very attractive ‘simplification’ of Brexit’s unwanted complications for Mr. Gove and for the media. In the latter case I use the word ‘lie’, and we would do well to leave the creative work on that to the acknowledged experts.
Well what I said was based on what some international lawyer said, an ‘expert’ if you will.
Agreed, although I’d say it is even simpler. In the end an MP’s duty is to act in the best interests of his or her constituents.
If Brexit would make them poorer as all the forecasts seem to show then it is their duty not to sanction it until such a time as forecasts suggest otherwise. It doesn’t matter what the referendum said – unless and until we have one on whether we want to be made poorer or not.
Additionally the Italian referendum next week doesn’t look too promising for the EU and nor does next year’s French election.
In the current circumstances, delaying Article 50 beyond March at the very least, can only be in the UK’s best interests.
Meanwhile are there actually any creditable forecasts showing greater UK prosperity on leaving the EU?
Not that I know of
Complete fantasy IMO, and self-serving to boot. Just wish for the referendum never to have happened and – hey presto! – it’s gone. The votes of those who voted to leave (ie who had the effrontery to take a different view than yours)? They are expunged from the record. The people who cast them? They don’t count.
I despair.
The referendum did happen
But all it did is say we would leave the EU
And it was not binding
So of course there has to be a plan to leave
BUT it does not have to be a plan at any cost and nor is it binding
Because that’s not the way democracy works
In order for democracy to function properly people need to vote on the basis of accurate information. As the Leave campaign spent 3 months lying continuously (I don’t think there was one accurate statement from Leave over the whole campaign), I think we can safely conclude that democracy failed to function properly, because people were misinformed. The fact that the Leave campaign rowed back on every one of their campaign commitments (most obviously £350m per week for the NHS) within a few hours of the result being announced shows that the whole referendum was a farce and anyone in the Remain camp who takes the result seriously has been duped by Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and the rest of the far right.
The way what we call democracy has worked is, roughly speaking, that we elect MPs to the House of Commons and whichever party(ies) command a majority among the MPs elected form(s) the new government. Which then proceeds to govern until the next election unless it loses a vote of confidence (or ceases to command a majority).
However, a new element was introduced into that situation starting from 1975 when for the first time a referendum was held (by the Labour government, Labour having promised in its manifesto to do this if elected) to enable the people to either give or withold their approval for the Heath government’s having taken Britain into the EC without (it was claimed) having first obtained a mandate expressly for that from the people through the ballot-box.
In 2015 the H of C voted that the people through another referendum be asked to vote directly again on the question of whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU. It’s been said (and I assume it to be true, because if untrue it would have been immediately falsifiable just by looking in Hansard) that an undertaking is written into the parliamentary record to the effect that whatever decision was reached through the referendum would be acted-upon by Parliament. In other words, that was an integral part of the package being voted-upon by the people and it’s undeniable that that was what everybody *on both sides* took for granted was the case. What would have been the point of it otherwise?
Now those on the losing side are busily trying to wriggle-out of the binding nature of what was being voted-on WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO HAVE INSISTED UPON HAD THEIR OWN SIDE WON. Please don’t kid yourselves otherwise! Above all, please don’t assume that someone (God perhaps?) has granted you the monopoly in moral rectitude, like the Pharisee in the parable.
This being early days for referenda in Britain, and in the absence of a written constitution, there’s a good deal of uncertainty about their constitutional status and how that relates to Parliament’s and the judiciary’s. We shall hear more about that shortly from the Supreme Court.
But you’re wrong
The Referendum Act says the vote is not binding
So you’re presenting a false argument
And you’re arguing backwards from the conclusion you’d previously chosen to arrive at, in order to derive synthetically a premise which (surprise, surprise) happily fits it.
I think you know perfectly-well what I’m getting at and are resorting to legalistic hairsplitting so as to evade the real issue.
Well if you’re comfortable with that, fine. Anything goes, it seems – *and not just for the Daily Mail*.
Disappointing.
Robert
You appear to be debating with yourself
You will not be posting again
Richard
Richard – you say that the referendum vote was not binding. However in the documentation issued by the government it clearly states “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide”
I am afraid that I used to visit this site regularly but not now. You seem to be unable to accept any difference of opinion now – and your support for banning people from twitter for opinions you don’t like sums up what you are becoming. – hate speech yes – but that’s not what you were advocating. I once met you at a meeting and you seemed a reasonable guy in the flesh. However lately you do not.
Good work on the tax front. But the political stuff is becoming an echo chamber.
I look forward to you banning me.
Why would I ban you?
I do block people on Twitter who use hate speech. Why wouldn’t I?
And I do the same here. Again, why not?
And on the referendum I am simply stating what the law said.
But you don’t like that. Why?
I’d say I am being as reasonable as I can be when fitting thus blog between my other work. As reasonable as you find me in real life. As reasonable as anyone running a personal blog of this sort and getting the shit that comes with it could be.
And I respect your right to disagree if done respectfully. As you have done
But don’t bother while you’re about it offering me good luck on tax alone. It does not exist outside a political context
The situation is far more dire than deciding between direct democracy and parliamentary democracy; it will be argued that parliament cannot invoke A50 either in order for the pro-EU judges to build a bunker around Single-Market access. It is being decided by the Supreme Court whether or not Scotland and the devolved governments also need to approve the motion, in addition to the overall UK (where Scots, etc had an equal say in the matter as each other citizen who voted).
Even if the devolved governments agree to let parliament give the prime minister
permission to accept the will of the people in a vote sanctioned by
parliament (HOLY S*#!), remoaners are planning to take it to the European Court of Justice where it will be decided that all other 27 governments in the EU must
also have referendums and parliamentary approval with unanimous consent
before Article 50 can be signed. There are also plans to take the issue
of whether Article 50 can be revoked after signature to High Court,
Supreme Court, EU court, etc. Another court case on Article 127, and endless chants demanding additional referendums (which will all also be dismissed as advisory if they reassert hard Brexit)
At what point do the people have to
stand up and fight with violence to not allow endless appeals by judges
to determine that the definition of democracy is one in which every
citizen of the world votes and gets 100% in favour of change for change
to happen?
Surely change is already happening – the argument is over the actual change that has been voted for, which, because the referendum was worded with no thought for the country but only thought for the Conservative party, and also with the Brexit campaign fought on a duplicitous basis, where what you were voting in favour of was unclear – and indeed we were assured, even by Farage, we’d remain part of the single market. Thus the vote in favour becomes a vote in favour of of what EXACTLY?
“The Remainers” can’t take the case to the ECJ; only the Supreme Court can do that, and only for a clarification of European law. In this case the SC might ask the ECJ to rule on whether a triggering of Article 50 can be retracted. I’m afraid your scenario is pure fantasy.
Edmund Burke.
Bristol.
1774.
Duty of representatives of people.
I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.
He tells you that “the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;” and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.
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.
My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.
Outdated – and said at a time when rotten boroughs were rife.
The current crop of Tory MPs (& quite a few Labour) have taken what Burke said to an extreme – & represent mostly themselves, & their interests with a populace too blind (or too stupid) to see it. A bit more of the delegate would be a welcome change to the self-serving crew that sits in parliament at the moment.
Option 2 , or at least full access to the single market without freedom of movement, is what all the Brexiteers , not just Boris Johnston , promised the voters. They should be held to it. It does not matter that many of us said it was impossible – the voters did not believe us.
It is a serious political error in the current highly volatile climate to allow the Brexiteers now effectively to adopt the arguments of their opponents at the referendum that single market access and freedom of movement are incompatible. That will give them the political space to push for a hard Brexit which will lead to their true goal – a subservient alliance with Trump.
Dropping option 2 now enables the right to present their opponents as trying to undermine the referendum.
As the election of Trump shows every lie that the far right tell , however ridiculous , should be taken seriously and meticulously examined. In this case we can test it experimentally.
In other words MPs should only vote to trigger Article 50 on the basis of option 2 and the other commitments made at the referendum. They should only repeal the European Communities Act if these are achieved.
Caroline Lucas will be in the NE on the 9th Dec. I will be at the event so look out for me if you are also there.
As Edmund Burke said of the role of an MP:
“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.”
I was in Dublin over the weekend at the annual meeting of the Halley Tontine society. As usual wide ranging discussions ranging from the superiority of the European meteorological model over the US one, Climate Change, a forensic examination of the potential Trump team and of course Brexit. Here there was sadness and and disbelief as to the way it was being conducted. It was if we had a close relative who had been in a horrendous car crash, caused by reckless driving, and we were waiting to see how badly the patient would be damaged. Even if in the unlikely case the damage were slight, there was a belief that the reputational damage from the dangerous driving would last for decades. There was also horror at the strength of the right wing press.
There was a belief that the Supreme court would have to rule that not only Westminster but also the Scots and Northern Irish would have to have a veto. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Politics is very much in flux. The right wing is very good at peddling the propaganda that the country is overwhelming pro-brexit. It certainly true that on the 23 of June there was a slim pro-brexit majority but I believe this has evaporated despite the best efforts of the rabid right wing media. It will be very interesting to see the result of the Richmond Park by-election which we should know on Friday. Its a shame that Labour is contesting the seat.
I’m not sure many MPs will have the guts to vote against triggering article 50. It is certainly the right thing to do. Civil wars have been fought over less important issues. We know where rabid right wing populism has led us in the past.
The last is what really troubles me
I see angry faces too often and wonder how we got here
Decades of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Decades of ‘tough economic choices’ for the poor and tax breaks for the rich. Decades of hate propaganda blaming immigrants, scroungers, foreigners, Europe, basically anyone but the actual UK elite that have forced these policies on our people.
Politicians and society in general need to stand up against the right wing press now. The Daily Mail in its coverage of the Jo Cox killing shows its true colours once again; inherently pro-fascism.
What would the net inward migration figure be if option four prevailed.
If the current figure (say)315,000 per year is not reduced substantially than the objective of many leave votes will not have been achieved and option four with net inward migration of, say, 250,000 would bot be acceptable to the hard liners.
Isn’t option 3 Jeremy Corbyn’s position?
I’m coming round to the view that there’s no good way out of this – and that includes rejecting A50 and staying in the EU.
If we leave, it seems inconceivable to me that free movement would still be part of the package. Not to have some sort of control on EU immigration would, I am sure, be unacceptable to many Tories and a sizeable majority of the leave voters. That realistically leaves a hard brexit, with potentially very serious implications both for our economy and society in the short and medium term, and maybe longer.
Even if we stay opt to stay in, possibly after a 2nd referendum, the bad blood, resentment and sense of betrayal would linger and create conditions for more extreme populist political movements.
I fear whatever way we go now, we are in for a very hard time.
Probably
But I always hope for something better
I’m more than a little concerned that much of the commentary on the decision as to whether or not to invoke Article 50 has portrayed the EU and it’s market as something of a constant.
Who knows what the ‘rational choices’ will look like if the largest Italian banks fail and they get the full Greek treatment this time? What will be the effect of the right-wing Hobson’s choice that looks likely to be offered to the French? How long will Germany insist of defending it’s huge, probably treaty-defying, trade-surpluses?
Seems to me that the rational choice would be to delay A50, but not to rule it out completely until we’ve seen what develops over the next year.
So, as I said, no rational vote for it is possible
It hasn’t beeen mentioned here so far, so perhaps I should point out that there is an interesting possibility that the UK may have to trigger a seperate article to leave the EEA (includes EU countries and also Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Although of course the UK didn’t even vote to leave the EEA, who are alleged to have more flexible immigration terms:
http://influencegroup.org.uk/smartbrexit/
There are those who say we should go straight to repealing the European Communities Act 1972 (UK)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Communities_Act_1972_(UK)
although that does not appear to be exactly the position of Theresa May. (Her “Great Repeal Bill” would not come into force until the date of exit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Great_Repeal_Bill
Who is behind “British Influence”?
http://www.gbf.com/peter-wilding-founder-and-director-of-british-influence/
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/peter-wilding-aa70b864
Looks like a pretty elitist bunch, to be honest. The kind of people who get up the nose of people who voted for Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11418773/Bring-on-the-EU-referendum.-Britain-will-vote-to-stay-in.html
“Bring on the EU referendum. Britain will vote to stay in” – oops – he didn’t quite get that one right, did he? (Underlines the “arrogance” of leading Remainers that I referred to elsewhere).
OK, so what do you want?
Leavers?
With the little you’ve been told so far would you really buy a used car from a Brexiteer?
Are we allowed to quote from an FT comments page? I think the following neatly sums up the situation . . .
Leavers “We voted Brexit, now You Remainers need to implement it”
Remainers “But it’s not possible!”
Leavers “The People Have Spoken. Therefore it is possible. You just have to think positively.”
Remainers “And do what exactly?”
Leavers “Come up with a Plan that will leave us all better off outside the EU than in it”
Remainers “But it’s not possible!”
Leavers “Quit with the negative vibes. The People Have Spoken.”
Remainers “But even you don’t know how!”
Leavers “That’s your problem, we’ve done our bit and voted, we’re going to sit here and eat popcorn and watch as you do it.”
Remainers “Shouldn’t you do it?”
Leavers “It’s not up to us to work out the detail, it’s up to you experts.”
Remainers “I thought you’d had enough of experts”
Leavers “Remain experts.”
Remainers “There are no Leave experts”
Leavers “Then you’ll have to do it then. Oh, and by the way, no dragging your feet or complaining about it, because if you do a deal we don’t want, we’ll eat you alive.”
Remainers “But you don’t know what you want!”
Leavers “We want massive economic growth, no migration, free trade with the EU and every other country, on our terms, the revival of British industry, re-open the coal mines, tea and vicars on every village green, some bunting, and maybe restoration of the empire.”
Remainers “You’re delusional.”
Leavers “We’re a delusional majority. DEMOCRACY! So do the thing that isn’t possible, very quickly, and give all Leavers what they want, even though they don’t know what they want, and ignore the 16 million other voters who disagree. They’re tight trouser latte-sipping hipsters who whine all the time, who cares.”
By Ishtar Ostaria
Brilliant
It astonishes me that people (including MPs it seems) seem to have forgotten that most MPs voted in favour of having the referendum, including Caroline Lucas (whom I have a lot of regard for in many ways). This is part of what she said in the 2nd reading debate:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm150609/debtext/150609-0004.htm
Well, fine words about reform of the EU, but nothing much in the way of reform actually happened, did it? Not much chance of reform in the future then, I would suggest.
If the MPs who voted in favour of the Referendum Act 2015 had no intention of actually abiding by the result, then why did they vote for it? If they don’t like the fact that it was such a close result, then why did they not ensure that conditions about the proportion of Remain/Leave votes were built in to the referendum?
As far as the options for single-market & freedom of movement, as detailed by Richard above, are concerned, why were not additional questions built in to the referendum, asking “what kind of Brexit” (if any) people wanted?
Perhaps because in the (sorry to have to say it) arrogance of the Remain leading supporters, the assumption was that Remain would be sure to win, the British people being “sensible” enough to know on which side their bread was buttered.
Politics makes for unhappy bedfellows quite often, and there are many in the Leave camp whom I would never associate myself. (I actually voted Remain, but with major misgivings). But there was and is a perfectly respectable left-wing case for leaving the EU, which was made, among others, by Tariq Ali, Dennis Skinner, George Galloway, and of course it used to be made by Tony Benn. You may or may not agree with their politics, but they are hardly right-wing racist bigots. And leading heterodox economists such as Richard Werner and Steve Keen also supported Leave, so it was by no means an economic “no brainer” for the UK to remain.
They did not need to have intention of being bound by the result
It was advisory and non-binding