• I've just finished catching up on this thread after three months of living in Italy and not reading/watching the UK news. Can I check I've got this right?

    May's Brexit is rapidly derailing (cf. yesterday's triple whammy) and it seems less and less likely she'll be able to get her deal which nobody is really happy with (probably including her) through Parliament.

    However. Unfortunately what this means in reality is a hard Brexit is now more likely, unless Brexit doesn't happen at all, which is simultaneously also more likely because Grieve's amendment gives more control back to MPs, but don't hold your breath on that one. It has now clearly been established by someone in Europe that the UK has the right to self-withdraw from Article 5o though, so that's something.

    What remainers therefore have to hope is that somehow MPs will actually make a sensible decision ahead of a hard Brexit and either pull it entirely or take it to the electorate who, seeing what's on offer, will collectively issue a resigned sigh and vote by more than 50% to not take the risk even if they're not exactly enamoured with Europe.

    Meanwhile dashing Sir Keir Starmer (KCB, QC, 56) has pulled off an incredible political feat by getting Parliament to find the government in contempt, but nobody is really sure what this means and there's no actual punishment for it, other than having to perform a rapid public U-turn which Andrea Leadsom is obviously extremely unhappy about because it doesn't fit well with her agenda of reviving her leadership ambitions by upstaging the Prime Minister whenever possible (such as by bringing life into the world). But what it does mean and something which everyone can certainly agree on is that the full legal advice will be published in full, in it's entirety and in it's fullness.

    Nobody has been able to read it yet though because it hasn't been published yet, so nobody knows what the government was trying to hide, or not trying to hide, because nobody has read it yet, making it something of a political Schrödinger's Cat.

    Meanwhile Liam Fox has just said there is a risk MPs might "steal Brexit from the British people" which suggests that he really still doesn't seem to get it, because why would anyone steal something which nobody seems to want.

    Is that about right? I'm not sure what's happened to David Davis (I imagine he's somewhere in Europe in a sticky situation leaving an answerphone message for TM right now) or who the Brexit secretary is.

  • It has now clearly been established by someone in Europe that the UK has the right to self-withdraw from Article 5o though, so that's something.

    It's still awaiting the final ruling from the ECJ, though.

    What remainers therefore have to hope is that somehow MPs will actually make a sensible decision ahead of a hard Brexit and either pull it entirely or take it to the electorate who, seeing what's on offer, will collectively issue a resigned sigh and vote by more than 50% to not take the risk even if they're not exactly enamoured with Europe.

    ... and there would then still be the cancer of inequality, which many believe is caused by 'globalisation', for which in Europe they hold the EU responsible. What will be done about that?

    Meanwhile dashing Sir Keir Starmer (KCB, QC, 56) has pulled off an incredible political feat by getting Parliament to find the government in contempt,

    I'm not sure it's an 'incredible feat'. I think it's a necessary feat, as the Government very clearly was in contempt, and it is, of course, a good thing that it has been found to be, and there's a hope that May won't continue to cause all this pointless additional work in her pettifogging obstructive way.

    However, I think May has survived worse scandals in her treatment of Parliament before and the Tories held firm on those; it was only because in this instance Labour and 'Brexit'eer interests were briefly aligned that she lost. I also don't think that what has come out is really particularly remarkable. Sure, seeing it in black-and-white confirms the 'Brexit'eers' suspicions, but that's about it. Will it influence their voting behaviour? All in all, it was probably at best a small skirmish and at worst a total red herring.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Showing her class again:

    In a defiant interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Leadsom, the leader of the House, said any MP who had ambitions of being in government at some point in the future would “live to regret” the contempt vote that forced the government to publish its full Brexit legal advice.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/05/may-to-publish-brexit-legal-advice-as-tories-urge-change-of-course

    Meanwhile Liam Fox has just said there is a risk MPs might "steal Brexit from the British people" which suggests that he really still doesn't seem to get it, because why would anyone steal something which nobody seems to want.

    Plenty of people want 'Brexit'. They may not be in a majority at the moment, or they may be for all I know, but plenty of people want it. Your 'which nobody seems to want' is clear evidence of your London Italian bubble. :)

  • Ah thanks, I'd missed that on the ECJ.

    I'm not sure I get the link with inequality but I do know it's worse here than in Italy - 20% v. 8.4%. And the Italian government tried to reduce it by running a 2.4% budget deficit next year so they could pay a limited universal basic income, including benefits to the unemployed (not an unreasonable ask you might think), but were stymied by the EU. Which is therefore not very popular in Italy right now.

    What Starmer did is in parliamentary terms was genuinely historic. It's the first time the House has found ministers in contempt of Parliament, ever, and the full legal advice is not usually given out, so not only is it unprecedented for the government to be found in contempt but it's a fundamental constitutional convention that neither the fact, nor the content, of Law Officers’ advice is disclosed outside Government without the Law Officers’ consent.

    When the legal advice was published yesterday Lord Keen of Elie claimed for the government that "The release of this advice does not set a precedent for any future release of Law Officers' advice." That's clearly not the case IMO but IANAConstitutionalL.

    Yes I agreed with @aggi on the stealing Brexit bit, I was just letting my own opinion in there.

About