Yay!
And do please still sign if you have not already.
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:
Read more about me
If you like what I do please support me on Ko-fi using credit or debit card or PayPal
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
Climate breakdown trumps Brexit. There were 12 years (there are now 11) for the world to make drastic cuts in emissions. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/05/climate-breakdown-uk-greener-new-deal-cap-consumption?CMP=share_btn_link)
The EU + UK laws that we have, are a good enough basis from which to embark on giving our children a chance. The referendum was not decisive. In 2016 Nigel Farage advocated a re-run if UKIP lost (bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681)
As well as a state of emergency, there needs to be a compelling public information campaign. Wartime slogans like: ‘Is your journey really necessary?’ come to mind. The UK started the industrial revolution — we have rails, roads and concrete all over the place. So our country should act whether or not others join in immediately.
Joe Burlington Says:
“…..So our country should act whether or not others join in immediately.”
Absolutely.
It is pure cowardice to wait on others to lead. And we are turning down the opportunity to lead and to benefit economically by doing so.
What we are engaged in is the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ on a global scale.
And we know we are doing this and we know it is stupid, and we know there is no necessity. None whatsoever.
On a related front, this information has been published this morning:
The breakdown data from last week’s vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement:
ENGLAND: 266 MPs for, 256 MPs against (51%-49%)
SCOTLAND: 13 for, 45 against (22%-78%)
WALES: 6 for, 33 against (15%-85%)
NORTHERN IRELAND: 1 for, 10 against (9%-91%)
Also, for general information, there is another UK Government petition currently active. See:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231563
Hope this is of interest. 🙂
Consider this, if you will.
The petition for England to leave the UK is at best ‘light relief’, and does not stand close scrutiny, but it highlights an important issue. On one side there are circa 1,500 treaties worldwide to which the UK has established and important commitments of many kinds, and on the other side there is the UK national debt.
Following the logic, and indeed the terms of the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, for example (an incorporating Union please note – a term with a very specific meaning); strictly the only appropriate way to end this Union is to dissolve it. Dissolving the Union, however and therefore terminating all the treaties; at which point the national debt would also fall due for repayment, would have obvious and serious consequences for all constituent parts of the UK, that are completely unsustainable and frankly too difficult to address. The UK therefore cannot be dissolved. All that can be done to dismember the Union, is for any of the smaller constituent parts of the UK which wish to do so; to leave the Union, with England at the core of rUK (in Scotland’s case at least, if it leaves, effectively treating the Union as if it had been a Federal Union all along; which of course, it isn’t, save as cover for the necessary realpolitik in both Scotland and rUK’s mutual interest). England cannot leave the UK, it is simply not a choice it can make unilaterally. The Union that England, more than any other party actually created, means that England does not have the freedom of the other parties to leave the Union. This is unavoidable. It is the product of England’s labyrinthine history, and now cannot be undone. England was the first architect, and is fated to be the last member of the Union. It follows that, ironically, the UK can Brexit, but it cannot exit the Union.
Disprove.
Interesting….and instinctively I think correct
It probably is / would be extremely difficult for anyone not provided with suitable gown, wig and gavel to “disprove” your contention John S Warren. But your mention of “…any other party…” hints there may be others who are part of the United Kingdom formed by the Treaty of Union 1707 / 1708. Neither Wales, nor Ireland, nor Northern Ireland, nor Gibralter, nor Malta, nor Cyprus, nor any party other than Scotland is party with England to The Treaty of Union. Only the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England are participating parties within The Treaty of Union; or so it is said. As a live international treaty, like so many others in force round the world all / most of these treaties if and when circumstances change sufficiently single parties to such a treaty may declare they cease to accept said treaty and withdraw. That may be a simple or a complex operation but need not be illegal.
So, could not England withdraw from The Treaty of Union? Could Scotland not withdraw? Some say such a test is in the offing. Some say sooner rather than later.
John S Warren says:
“The petition for England to leave the UK is at best ‘light relief’, ….”
The argument you make, John is semantic.
Alas semantics form the basis of the world we live in, and the creatures we are. Your logic seems sound.
But if there was the will the way can be found. England alone could retain the title of United Kingdom – it already is a travesty title anyway. A kingdom rent in twain across every social strata we have can only be called united as a bad joke.
Brexit has manifest as a bid for English independence. There are ways and means to grant that desire….. by deliberation or by default it is what is coming, I feel. The alternative looks increasingly to be something not far removed from (if not actually) civil war.
We really need to revoke Article 50 and sort these issues for ourselves. Not to do so is to demonstrate that we have no sovereignty worth the name and no control over our own destiny.
Revocation of Article 50 does not take us back to where we were except in practical administrative terms. That’s realpolitik. We can never go back because England has declared beyond peradventure its distaste for belonging. (To anything !!)
I exaggerate. Half of England has expressed this distaste, or appears to have done so. By referendum and by last weeks representative votes in the House.
For those who believe numbers tell us anything useful….. (count me out)
The breakdown data from last week’s vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement:
ENGLAND: 266 MPs for, 256 MPs against (51%-49%)
SCOTLAND: 13 for, 45 against (22%-78%)
WALES: 6 for, 33 against (15%-85%)
NORTHERN IRELAND: 1 for, 10 against (9%-91%)
(Figures lifted from ‘Wings’. I’m assuming they are factually correct. Though I know from what I’ve heard of the Commons debate that some who oppose do so because the terms are not hard enough and some because the terms are not soft enough. See why I distrust numbers ? I never thought I would be in agreement with anything said by John Redwood !! But it appears there truly is a first time for everything)
John
I find your dismissive tone about the A50 petition too high minded and dismissive for my liking. Much could be said about the whole bloody process – never mind the petition which seems based on the dawning reality by many that we’ve been had.
You do seem to be a stickler for ‘rules’. But thinking about the tortuous journey we have been on with all its twits (sic) and turns consider this: that there aren’t any fucking rules ? British self rule, its democracy is all a sham – ad hoc, whimsical even – just like the petition (and therefore it too is valid at this moment).
This is what we have come to. This is where we are. No one is in position to disprove anything because we are in totally new territory. Whoever comes out on top will decide the next new set of rules I’m sure. And the previous ones just won’t matter.
The core of the proposition is the 1,500 treaties (and their adjuncts), to say nothing of all the world institutions in which the UK is a partner (United Nations, NATO, IMF, Group of Seven etc.), and the National Debt, effectively locks England into the UK. The UK (or rUK-England) cannot simply withdraw from them all; it is simply not tenable.
The 1707 Union is buried deep in the creation of the Union(s) of the UK. Technically, both the Scottish and English Parliaments were dissolved in 1707 as part of the agreed Treaty between Scotland and England; the Parliament at Westminster, in incorporating Scotland, deliberately created a new Union Parliament at Westminster. You may say that is a political fiction, but there it is. The point I am developing, is that England did not just commit itself to be the heart of the UK, but has calculatedly locked itself permanently into the UK, like an insect trapped in amber. The ‘backstop’ in the EU negotiations is an example of the difficulty the UK faces simply to consider withdrawing from the established precedence of the undertakings it has made throughout the world. In the real world it is not realistic to propose that England is free to withdraw from the UK. I note the Attorney General’s comments in Parliament recently, but at the time I considered them at best no doubt theoretically correct, in a seminar; but in terms of realpolitik, and the UK’s place in the world: bluster. It looked a little like bluster. The thesis I am exploring is that England is chained to the UK; effectively, permanently.
John S Warren says:
“I note the Attorney General’s comments in Parliament recently, ..[…].. but in terms of realpolitik, and the UK’s place in the world: bluster. It looked a little like bluster. ”
Indeed arrogant bluster seems to be very much his style. A theatrical caracature of a senior barrister or QC at work in the courthouse; Mrs May sitting sheepishly beside him looking plaintive and somewhat abashed hoping to ‘get off’. Not a performance that inspires trust; too ‘clever’ for that and devoid of any sense of sincerity, other than sincerely wishing to win the case having made the best of a flimsy brief.
“The thesis I am exploring is that England is chained to the UK; effectively, permanently.”
Rather as it was to it’s Empire ?? As long as it is chained only to the title, that is no great concern to Scots who wish to be free of its bondage.
Other petitions are available: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231563.
Check out the map and see where most of their support is coming from!
@Willie John.
Thirteen thousand….and a bit…. well ‘Fuck my boots’ (as my friend was fond of saying) government better sit up and take notice of THAT groundswell. (HELP. I need falling-about-laughing-with-tears-rolling-down-my-cheeks emojis)
Here is another petition, on a more serious note, that you might be interested in:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241848
(On the subject of English independence from the UK, they would never do it because the UK does indeed hold all the international treaties, relationships, memberships, and England would never give that up. But the could if they wanted to. If Scotland gains independence, then effectively the UK should cease to be – there are no two kingdoms united in this case – but that won’t be the case. Potentially a good negotiating point for Scotland when it comes to divvying up the assets/debts though)
Meanwhile the “Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.” petition has finally managed to limp past 600k. It currently stands at 600,004. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963
Given the amount of coverage that both petitions have had on MSM It is reasonable to assume that at least 10 times as many people would rather cancel A50 than have a no deal Brexit.
SteveH says: “Meanwhile the “Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.” petition has finally managed to limp past 600k. It currently stands at 600,004. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963“.
Wakey,wakey Steve! Is this an attempt at an April Fool stunt? Petition 229963 is ‘to Leave the EU without a Deal’ NOT ‘Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU’ and indeed has 600,601 signatories. Meanwhile, the petition to ‘Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU’ (petition 241584) is over 6,320,000 and still rising. Do try to keep up and heed the old Scots proverb – Facts are chiels that winna ding!
Ken, I can’t believe I posted that, it wasn’t what I intended.
We are in a pickle because everyone seems to want to ignore the fact: that the referendumb was conducted in a really bad style and is not safe.
The petition is valid because it represents the growing knowledge of the implications of BREXIT which were not made clear or glossed over at the time of the vote. Here, time has been the revelator.
The blind acceptance of this conduct sets the tone about any perceived ‘rules’ over the conduct of Parliament, the EU withdrawal, the Union, the constitution (listen to what they are saying about Bercow) – everything! It’s all up for grabs. I say again we are in unchartered territory and the concern is that malignant vested interests will set those rules.
May has done everything to use BREXIT to keep the Tories in power – she effectively self-ratified it before Parliament said anything; she did not want to give Parliament a vote, kept others away from it, treats it terms of a GE so that she could claim it for the Tories as popularity boost. And she clings to power on that basis too. May has done as much as anyone to make the process lawless, procedure-less and undemocratic.
So the petition matters in my view – it matters a lot and should not be so haughtily dismissed and nor should the concerns of those who signed it honourably – like myself.
I am at something of a loss to understand your reference to my alleged dismissiveness towards the A50 petition. Before I sink into this mire, my reference was to the petition for England to leave the Union, which currently has some 14k names. I hope that helps.
For the avoidance of doubt, I signed the Revoke A50 petition quite early, and recall celebrating on other threads here the rise through 3.0m names and beyond – as triumphant vindication of the petition; to which Richard and other commenters responded.
I have no idea how you adduced my supposed dismissiveness of the A50 Referendum. In any case you are quite wrong. I do sometimes think I am wasting my time ……
No you’re not wasting your time.
I understand. Please accept my apologies.
My point is that with so many unanswered questions and a lack of clear direction anything seems to go at the moment. I just do not see any coherence anymore.
Promptly and graciously offered, and accepted with thanks.
My cunning plan didn’t work. I am still here.
“A50 petition”, not Referendum. I knew I would sink into the mire. I have a cunning plan: beam me up, Scotty.
Thank you for accepting my apologies – even more graciously than I offered them I must add.
Richard, when you say ‘Yay!’, I’m wondering if you think that revoking article 50 would somehow mean that we all just go back to what it was and we forget the whole sorry affair? Or are you thinking that it is the opportunity to avoid any no-deals or cliff edges and gives the UK time to sort out what it wants and negotiate from a position of security?
I can’t really tell how people are thinking about the revoke article 50 option, but I think some are assuming it’s just like a vote for remain – only a referendum vote will give us that (and an overwhelming one at that). Any revocation will still have to take into consideration the last referendum result. It’s going to carry on for a while yet, whatever happens. Politically I can’t see any other route for this option.
There is some chat about how people supporting no-deal don’t actually have a clue what it means, thinking it means business as usual while in fact it means the opposite, so it’s quite likely (consideration the atrocious news services we have) there are quite a few misunderstandings on what each of the other options might involve.
Revocation, like anything else, would only be a step
The rebuilding process from whatever happens will take decades and be going on long after I am gone
15.2M voted to leave..whats your point?
Does that really need an answer?
If so, why?
It is worth reminding ourselves that the 2016 Referendum was advisory and the implications of this
Over 200,000 (>two hundred thousand) people had petitioned the High Court to void the result because of illegal activity and the Supreme Court ruled on these petitions in December 2016. The Supreme Court judged that the EU referendum was not legally binding but advisory, so logically it cannot be ordered to be rerun by a court. The decision about whether to go back to the public after a advisory referendum is not a legal judgement; it is a political one.
I appreciate that it sounds ridiculous but it is what it is. If it had been any other type of election or referendum the court would have been able to act (they have in the past) even a Local Authority Referendum would have fallen under the rule of law but not the 2016 EU Referendum.
We are rather bizarrely committed to enact the result of an advisory referendum that if it had been anything else but advisory would have almost certainly have been voided because of various illegalities. You couldn’t make it up.
Agreed
I believe all UK referendums are advisory – or consultative – due to the way the constitution (doesn’t) works in the UK – there can be political declarations to support it (assurances were given in this case), but it also came with a promise of a vote to ratify any agreement on withdrawal – interesting thread on this here:
Referendum meant to be held on the withdrawal agreement
https://mobile.twitter.com/EUflagmafia/status/1111571853531926528
It is quite a complex issue but there are various Local Authority referendums that mandate that the result must be enacted. Also it is self evident (the Kyle amendment is an example ) that a national referendum can be made to compel the enactment of legislation if parliament decides it should be.