EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

No great surprise

Old, white, male - predictable enough.

Not sure what that last column says though - the average uk income is 27K apparently - so that last column says what? 63% of members are either poor, average or above averagely wealthy?

Perhaps it's more use the other way around - significantly above average (37%) representation of very high income members.

The Government (rather, Parliament) is bound only inasmuch as the ECHR is incorporated into the HRA (and any other UK legislation), no? Because sovereignty, and Parliament can not be bound by its predecessors.

Ignoring it would be unlawful, but there's nothing stopping them from repealing the relevant parts of HRA, other than other multi- / uni-lateral agreements that are contingent and / or dependent on it.

Unpleasant company would probably be the best we can expect, given the current shitshow.

The Government (rather, Parliament) is bound only inasmuch as the ECHR is incorporated into the HRA (and any other UK legislation), no?

Not quite. By international law the government (or more accurately the nation) would still be bound by the ECHR, regardless of whether its implemented into domestic law directly or not. Prior to the HRA98 citizens of the UK could still rely upon the ECHR to vindicate their human rights against the government of the day, but they had to go to Strasbourg and to the European Court on Human Rights to get a ruling, the domestic courts couldn't apply the ECHR directly. In order to go to Strasbourg it was usually necessary to exhaust all potential remedies and avenues of appeal domestically, resulting in getting to Strasbourg being a long, complex and most importantly very expensive process.

Domestic courts could however, and still would, interpret domestic law so that it is compatible with the ECHR so long as there was permissible scope to do so.

You're right there's nothing to prevent HMG from repealing the HRA98, which would put us back into the same position where we were prior to that Act. Signatories to the ECHR, bound by it, but with a rather byzantine route to enforcement.

As for unpleasant company, I think the UK is rapidly on its way to being it, let alone being in it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45513462

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland more research shows that Brexit makes everything worse.

I've no idea why ex UUP leader David Trimble was a lot more upbeat, though he DID say that converging trade rules would cause issues. That is a little too subtle an alarm call if he meant it that way...

https://www.ft.com/content/31653510-b6a6-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1

Meanwhile in the Labour party, will likely vote against anything TM can come up with....

Which is insane, as it means nuclear Brexit

Is there any way to get around the FT paywall?

Yup, everything up in the air, hopefully if this does happen the EU will grant an extension to A50 to hold a general election, another referendum (unlikely) or come up with a deal everyone agrees with (still unlikely). We will likely end up with a BINO deal to limp it over the line!

Somehow I got past it, now can't get to the article, soz, can anyone else post up the article?

Yup, everything up in the air, hopefully if this does happen the EU will grant an extension to A50 to hold a general election, another referendum (unlikely) or come up with a deal everyone agrees with (still unlikely). We will likely end up with a BINO deal to limp it over the line!

I think they'd rather just get it over with - if they granted an extension we'd just piss it away trying to get an impossible trade deal (still).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/14/electoral-commission-misinterpreted-law-vote-leave-high-court

Is there any way to get around the FT paywall?

Right click, open in incognito / privacy mode often works (they have a cookie counter for free articles). And/or install a chrome plugin to set the referer to google.com - search referal usually bypass the paywall, at least up to that cookie counter cap.

Oh-dear...

If there was a genuine reason such as a GE/change in adminstration or referendum #peoplesvote, they would be valid reasons for an extension IMO, if however we just want to just carry on tossing it off, then not so much

Depends when the GE hits, but if it's over and Corbyn wins there's no chance he'd ask for an extension to A50 in my view.

Not very meaningful without same chart for other parties. Eg. 84% male obvs not representative of overall population, but are other parties' memberships much better?

I don't think the Tories will rebel against May. That's just sabre-rattling. They all know perfectly well that if a general election is precipitated now, there's a possibility that they'll lose it. They're all going to be nice demure Dominic Grieves and wait until the Boundary Review and Voter ID (and probably other things I haven't heard about) have shifted the goalposts. They've got enough time, until 2022, and Theresa May will be Prime Minister until 2021, when they'll probably replace her to give a new leader time to 'bed in' or trigger an early election. If the Tories/DUP don't rebel, there's nothing Labour can do.

As I said, I don't believe there will be a general election any time soon. But assuming I'm wrong, why would Corbyn not ask for an extension to renegotiate important points given the mess the Tories have made so far? It might not be a very long one, but I don't see why he wouldn't buy himself more time instead of being railroaded into a more Tory 'Brexit'.

Because he wants the same thing as Mogg. He won’t extend, he’ll blame the Tories for delivering what actually matches his stated policy goals- no CU, no SM, no FOM.

Also, do you think May can survive not getting a withdrawal agreement and the chaos that will follow? I don’t, hence GE soon.

^ I was typing pretty much the same. But you’ve put it much more succinctly.

I don't think these are Corbyn's policy goals at all. Labour has clearly committed to a customs union. Their stances on the single market and freedom of movement are far from clear. Have they said anything about them? I certainly don't believe that they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater like the Moggies. Where I agree with you is that I think it may be possible that he may want to use the Tory mess as a cover for renegotiation. I don't think that would work with the EU, though.

So far the only line I've seen from Labour is that they want to guarantee EU citizens' rights, preserve EU institutions plus ECHR, have a customs union, and otherwise leave their options open.

As I said, I don't think the ERG types would eventually vote against May. They're far more worried about a Corbyn government. They'll keep their unity and wait for the moved goalposts.

Labour put in their manifesto to end freedom of movement...

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

If they faff about and try to get exemptions the EU won't give to anyone like a single market with no fom it's not going to help.

I still think they may be open to change though and their grass roots activists are busy asking for a people's vote etc.

Mogg only listens his bank account.

Labour put in their manifesto to end freedom of movement...

Not quite. They say: 'Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.'

This is currently a fact--never mind that the EU insist that FOM is a key component of the single market. Labour are not in power and don't currently have to say much about what they would do in the negotiations. At least in this text they don't make any specific policy commitments on FOM. They don't say that Labour will end freedom of movement. Obviously, their target is an end to worker exploitation, but when they talk about fair(er) immigration rules here, they don't say that they definitely want to replace FOM with said rules, but rather that, given the current situation--the UK will leave the EU, the Tories are definitely committed to ending FOM, etc.--, should Labour gain power they would work on the immigration system, as fleshed out by Diane Abbott this week. It's a set of subtle differences but cleverly worded to allow Labour flexibility, perhaps, as you say, to react to grassroots pressure, but mostly, I think, not to be drawn into a situation in which the Tories can build up 'Brexit' as a major difference. As in the last general election, Labour want to define that difference through all the other parts of their (popular) manifesto.

It will be an irony fitting of the whole Brexit mess if it’s Labour who take it over the line and torpedo the remaining manufacturing industries in the UK in the process.