EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Well, I don't think they'll maintain a monopoly on this kind of profiling - they're ahead of the curve right now, but other people will figure out how to do the same thing - unless there's a backlash against social media monitoring as result of CA pulling back the curtain a bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/30/brexit-bill-to-pass-without-amendment-as-tory-rebels-back-off

That's the SNP/Labour/SDLP amendment plan dead and floating in the water if this pans out like reported...

Interesting times, bah.

My not so "local" MP has responded to my email:

Dear Mr jaw,
Thank you very much for your e-mail. You will appreciate that circumstances surrounding the debate and vote on Wednesday are changing all the time and I am currently seeking to move an amendment to the Government's bill. I will give further details as to my thoughts and intentions later but in the meantime I hope that this explanation as to my thinking ( as of last Friday) is of interest ?
"As you will appreciate the situation is changing very fast, and I will make a final decision in respect of Article 50 when I have seen the proposed Bill and considered the scope of any amendments which are put forward " "However it will not surprise most people writing to me that my instincts are very much against supporting it.

I thought it helpful to give you a quick response so here are my (highly summarised!) thoughts:

I am very conscious that:

The referendum result, though close, still delivered a majority for ‘leave’ and great care needs to be taken in going against the expressed will of the majority of those who voted. I am unconvinced by those who argue a referendum is merely advisory- that is not how it was perceived, and the concerns which underpinned the 52% leave vote must be heard, understood and responded to.

Article 50 is not, in itself, an outcome. It is the trigger to start negotiations, and no more. Arguably it has achieved a symbolic importance beyond its actual significance because of the court case about whether MPs in Parliament or the Prime Minister alone should make the decision. The court case was not about whether or not to start negotiations.

Whilst both Westminster constituencies voted convincingly for ‘remain’, as did London as a whole, I am wary of the argument that, as a matter of principle, MPs should vote in line with the majority view locally. Setting aside the constitutional argument (MPs are representatives, not delegates) the logic of this argument, if followed, would mean that all MPs in areas where ‘leave’ won would be expected to vote to leave regardless of their assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the argument.

However:

I haven’t changed my mind about the benefits of Europe, economic or cultural, the values of co-operation and the benefits of free trade within the single market and the customs union. Also, importantly, the horrors of Europe’s past can never be forgotten.

I find it hard to support a rush into negotiations which seem highly likely, on the evidence, to make Britain as a whole, London and this constituency in particular, poorer. Even though I don’t think MPs should treat a local result as a specific mandate, we must balance the views and interests of constituents alongside the national interest! 48% of the voting public voted remain (70% in Westminster) and their concerns must be represented too.
The referendum result was a message about departure, not about destination. it reflected deep concerns about a range of issues, including migration. But the extent to which voters intended a particular outcome in respect of trade, the single market, the customs union and so on is open to interpretation. For example, the Conservative manifesto at the last election promised the referendum whilst stressing the importance of staying within the single market, and prominent 'leave' campaigners also stated that a leave vote would be read as opposition to the single market.

Even though, out of the tangled messages emerging from the government, ministers also appear to be saying that they would prefer “a comprehensive free trade area and customs agreement" which will deliver "the exact same benefits" as single market membership, it is hard to see how such a thing is deliverable. Surely if it were, we would not have had to go through the lengthy negotiations to create the Single Market in the first place? In practice, we are likely to face a difficult, lengthy, process of withdrawal and equally hard negotiations to establish new agreements not just with the EU but also with other states across the world with whom our current deals are derived via the EU. Every single deal with another country about trade and migration will have an (as yet unpredictable, but possibly bad) effect on Westminster residents.

Perhaps most importantly, the threat of ‘no deal’ at the end of this short negotiation period leading to the re-casting of Britain as a de-regulated tax haven would be intolerable. The government should not be contemplating a race to the bottom, threatening public services, employee rights, consumer, environmental and other standards- nor should anyone be threatening it.

It seems highly unlikely there will be a meaningful opportunity for Parliament to vote on the acceptability of the proposed deal at the end of a two-year long, largely secret, negotiating process. Theresa May dodged a specific question on this point when given the opportunity at Prime Minster's Questions on Wednesday. We also do not know whether the government will be able to avoid a disastrous, last-minute, cliff edge. A ‘take it or leave it’ offer from the government, when both the ‘take it’ and the ‘leave it’ options are bad for Britain and Westminster would be unacceptable. It would effectively mean no real choice at all.

Of course there are dozens of specific points I could address, ranging from my on-going concern about the status of EU citizens in Britain/British citizens abroad, the impact on the other countries within the UK, our relationship with European agencies like Europol, but I thought you would want to know my overall position prior to the forthcoming votes.As you will appreciate the situation is changing very fast, and I will make a final decision in respect of Article 50 when I have seen the proposed Bill and considered the scope of any amendments which are put forward "

Thanks again for writing.

Kind regards

Karen Buck

Not a bad letter, my only gripe would be the "I am unconvinced by those who argue a referendum is merely advisory- that is not how it was perceived", I mean if you perceive the law not to apply to you, that doesn't make a difference either! ;)

The SDLP in NI will vote AGAINST btw.

Article 50 is not, in itself, an outcome.

Also, this is entirely false, is it not? My understanding was that once article 50 is triggered, you leave in 2 years. There are no take baksies allowed

No-one knows, as it's never been tested in law.

It's possible that, after 18 months of negotiations, the UK Government decides that any deal it's going to get is unpalatable and decides to remain in the EU. What the EU could or would do in that situation is unknown.

IANAL but this seems to suggest otherwise

Three. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

Will read more and see if I find anything definitive
(also not being confrontational, just wanting to edumacate myself)

Isn't there a court case going on in Dublin regarding whether Article 50 is reversible or not.

Ah, the Supreme court ruling has assumed that it is not reversible:

In these proceedings, it is common ground that notice under article 50(2) (which we shall call “Notice”) cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn. Especially as it is the Secretary of State’s case that, even if this common ground is mistaken, it would make no difference to the outcome of these proceedings, we are content to proceed on the basis that that is correct, without expressing any view of our own on either point. It follows from this that once the United Kingdom gives Notice, it will inevitably cease at a later date to be a member of the European Union and a party to the EU Treaties.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf

Although the man who wrote article 50 thinks it can be reversed.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/lord-kerr-author-article-50-brexit-reversed-high-court-ruling-2016-11

Well, the Miller case was effectively based on the assumption that Article 50 could not be revoked, and so the judges followed along with that assumption. But, as they suggest it's not particularly important, as the Supreme Court was only being asked to make a judgment on the technicalities of whether or not the Executive could use its Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50.

Ha. Okay. So basically what andyp said then

There's certainly a school of thought that suggests if it all ends up a complete mess, and we 'fess up to the EU, then it could indeed be stopped. But it would need someone with balls, as politically it's a major intervention. Can you see anyone doing that?

Yes!

Not Corbyn then.

Not currently, no. But at some point the realisation that a new Anglophone trading block is a pie in the sky idea and will not happen might, just might, cause the grown ups in the room to pause and think about what's best for the country.

the grown ups in the room to pause and think about what's best for the country.

IT'S THE WlLL OF THE PEOPLE, ANDY!

HOW MANY TIMES?!?!?!?

BREXIT OR DEATH!

;)

Cake

The cake is a lie...

:)

Some YouGov research

I just want my country back.

Which one ?

All of them.