WHITE PAPER PUBLISHED

The white paper promised by Theresa May has been published. The final version was signed off at 4:17 am on Thursday morning so all the signs of a rush job and apparently still containing typos and errors. You can see the document HERE for what it's worth. It really doesn't tell us anything new.

SIR IVAN ROGERS

Sir Ivan Rogers has been giving evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee (HERE). One MP Richard Drax (HERE) asked if the EU was genuine and reasonable in asking for 40-60 billion euro as an exit fee. Sir Ivan assured him it was both. He also said lawyers on both sides would come to different conclusions on the amount and implied that this would be probably settled by a political decision - otherwise the ECJ would presumably become involved.

Mr Drax wanted to know why the EU couldn't be reasonable and do what is in the best interests of the hundreds of millions of European citizens. I felt like shouting it was for the same reason the UK voted to leave, because people are not always or even mostly rational.

Kate Hoey asked what would happen if pay it and was told that would end the negotiations and result in no deal but did not seem unduly worried about falling back on WTO rules.

Sir Bill Cash, the chairman, seems not to grasp any details at all and struggled to understand what "access" to the single market meant! He referred several times to "white papers" published before the vote when none were published, just details of the likely result and what alternatives to membership were available. They were not white papers. He complained about documents coming through from the EU that were two inches thick suggesting he just could not be bothered to read any of it to see if it was good or not.

He heard that the Canadian and South Korean trade deals amounted to one and a half thousand pages but we're not as deep and comprehensive as ours are likely to be. I assume he is happy about this because he will not have to write or read it!

In the end it was not Sir Ivan's performance that was rivetting but that of the committee members who looked totally out of their depth, especially the leavers. All of the questions were ones that could and SHOULD have been asked BEFORE the vote. Instead they all urged voters to vote leave without knowing what it actually meant. As for Bill Cash, unless everything is served up in simple writing or pictures it looks like it's way beyond his mental faculties.

What a disaster.

TAKING BACK CONTROL - GOD HELP US ALL

Brexiteers bemoan the fact that too many of our laws come from Brussels and shout about taking back control. This is a bit disingenuous, because what they are really saying is let ME have more control. The idea that members of the public will have more control after we leave the EU is faintly ridiculous.

And in any case when we look at what our own politicians are responsible for -roads, railways, the health, education and social care sector it is invariably a mess, some more so than others. Roads are constantly clogged, railways don't run on time or even at all sometimes, the NHS stumbles from crisis to crisis while education produces far too many kids with appallingly low levels of attainment. And social care just keeps on getting worse.  These are all areas where our own leaders have complete control.

Now let us look at the stuff the EU is responsible for. Things like clean rivers and seas that are not polluted by raw sewage. Clean air and cleaner energy. The ability to trade without barriers across an entire continent without restriction and with common standards. Better food hygiene standards and animal welfare. Easy travel throughout the 28 nations that make up the EU. Safer medicines, safer air travel and better consumer rights. The list goes on. Our politicians complain about too may regulations but on the whole they make our lives better. But where UK politicians have control it is almost universally bad.

I have always believed that  it doesn't matter where the laws come from. The only question should be do they contribute to our well being and on that score the EU wins hands down.

WHERE ARE THE LEADERS?

The Brexit secretary, David Davis, speaking in the Withdrawal Bill debate yesterday said that the eyes of the nation were on the chamber and he was right. However, if the people were looking for leadership, I am afraid they didn't find it.

Too many MPs will vote for the bill even though they know it will cause immense damage to this country and future generations. Only Ken Clarke (HERE) on the conservative side said openly he would vote against the bill and in a terrific speech he mocked brexiteers as well as the idea that referendums are a substitute for proper government. Putting incredibly complex issues to the electorate was, he said, rather ridiculous.

Ian Duncan Smith derided the idea that people didn't know what they were voting for in last year's referendum. That he and other brexiteers think this doesn't surprise me. They themselves don't understand the issues. No one of my acquaintance read any part of the government documents setting out the case to remain and as far as I can tell, they all voted on entirely spurious reasons. I think that only a very small number of people really understand the issues, and they are virtually unanimously in favour of remaining.

In the house of commons there is a substantial majority to remain and on the basis that we are unlikely ever to vote for too many irrational people, this is unlikely to change. I hope when the time comes there will be some leaders emerge rather then meekly following the insane brexiteers over the cliff.

BREXIT BILL BEGINS ITS PASSAGE

The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 is due to be debated today in the house of commons and is widely expected to be voted through (HERE). There are a lot of amendments including one from the second people's challenge that I have written to my MP about but none are expected to halt progress of the bill.

Mrs May expects the whole bill to have passed through both houses by March 7th.

I also see that there are steps being taken by MEP's in Brussels (HERE) to block any deal unless Britain signs up to environmental regulations after brexit. I don't believe this is unreasonable but since they would expect us to accept some sort of legal oversight, perhaps from the ECJ or another body, this might take a bit of swallowing.

Yesterday Mrs May was in Cardiff to meet the heads of the UK's devolved administrations but no agreement was reached and Nicola Sturgeon is once again threatening another referendum if Scotland is forced out of the single market.

MAY'S VISIT TO MEET TRUMP

Mrs May's visit to meet Trump is a national embarrassment. This is what Brexit is reducing us to. Her visit follows a speech where she calls for us and the Americans to become leaders of a rules based global trading system and coincides with Trump's spokesman slapping a 20% tariff on Mexican goods to pay for his wall. So much for rules! The New York Times says her alignment with Trump even threatens the world order (HERE).

Trump is an idiot and a dangerous one. He may well be removed from office for corruption or something else and she is going to look like a complete fool and is deluded if she think we will get a good deal (HERE).  Angela Merkel is far more measured and circumspect and looks like a leader.

As was obvious immediately, the 20% tariff will actually be paid by the American consumer and not by the Mexico as Trump has repeatedly promised. I note this morning the US administration is back pedalling on the tariff announced yesterday. Like Mrs May it looks like they're making it up as they go along.

IDS AND UNSTYMIED IGNORANCE!

It is worrying when a former party leader makes demonstrably false claims about the Supreme Court's judgement yesterday. He called (HERE) the court self appointed when it isn't and said it was telling parliament what to do when it didn't. He then suggested that there was a question about who had sovereignty judges or Parliament.

A solicitor writing on his own blog described ID'S unstymied ignorance and base stupidity.

This is typical of Duncan Smith. He seems to know nothing but pontificates on everything. His understanding of the EU is utterly lamentable. If he truly understood it he would be a Europhile!

EU CONNECTIONS WON'T END IN 2019 ANYWAY

A couple of items caught my eye this week. Firstly, the BBC reported that we may have to continue paying into the EU budget for years because of "concrete obligations" entered into (HERE) and the whole question may end up in the courts.

And then this piece in The Telegraph (HERE) which was designed I think to cause apoplexy in all those mad brexiteers by claiming we will be subject to EU law for years after we leave!  Great stuff.

HANNAN TOPS POLL

Of all the conservative politicians who campaigned to leave, Daniel Hannan has been voted the one who did most to achieve brexit according to voters on the Conservative Home website (HERE). He was way out ahead of anyone else with 40%, almost twice the figure of Boris Johnson in second place.

So, if we have anyone in particular to blame, it is Mr Hannan. He has been caught out on any number of occasions with misleading statements but always refuses to back down. He is an eloquent version of Donald Trump - say whatever it takes to get the job done.

MAY REFUSES TO ALLOW PARLIAMENT A VOTE ON NEW DEAL

Mrs May appeared in front of the Liaison Committee yesterday and in spite of a lot of pressure, refused to say if she would allow parliament to vote on the terms of the withdrawal deal (HERE). The Independent says she risks parliamentary fury.

I am sure this cannot hold. Parliament will have to ratify any deal, especially if it involves any changes to UK citizens rights and obligations. It is impossible to see that she would be able to force this through without a vote especially when a majority in the commons are remainers anyway.

GISELA STUART ADMITS THERE WILL BE SACRIFICES TO BREXIT

Gisela Stuart has given an interview to The New Statesman (HERE) where she accuses journalists of exaggerating reports of racist crimes following the brexit vote - even though the 45% increase is I believe, a police statistic and not from the press.

In the interview she is asked how can she justify pushing for a full-fat Brexit, when the people who Labour is supposed to represent would be hit the hardest? Communities struggling financially, and migrants who have been victims of racism?

“You have to have a conversation and say, in the long-run, this was the right thing to do,” says Stuart of the former. “Restoring democratic accountability in a way, which makes a society resilient. It gives it that base on which you then become economically successful.”

So it is an acceptance of short-term sacrifice then? “Yeah, I think so. Yeah,” she concedes.

I cannot remember anyone on the leave side saying there would be any short-term sacrifice, in fact Digby Jones (see right) was among the majority of leavers when he said "there won't be any economic pain".  Stuart herself was on stage with BoJo when he told us we would prosper like never before.  What happens when voters realise they have been duped?

THE MIGHTY SHIP BEGINS TO TURN

With a headwind beginning to freshen and the sound of creaking timbers the mighty ship Brexit begins to turn slightly. After all the claims made in the referendum campaign and afterwards it now seems the government is setting a new course on immigration (HERE) and on payments into EU coffers (HERE) and (HERE). With a bit more realism on the horizon it is not impossible to see we might accept judgements of the ECJ on matters affecting the single market or at minimum some supranational legal body to adjudicate disputes.

On this basis, the difference between the status quo and our future relationship with the EU will be virtually zero and many people will wonder what it was all for.

The Lib-Dems won a stunning by election in Zac Goldsmith's constituency last night (HERE), overturning a 23,000 conservative majority, the candidate standing on an openly pro EU ticket and promising to vote against Brexit.  Who knows where we will end up?

LEAVING THE EU - AN ACT OF FAITH?

To many leavers there is almost an evangelical faith in the benefits of life outside the EU. Criticise them or their lack of any kind of plan and expect a vitriolic attack on you and your patriotism. They are not completely unlike some religious fundamentalists who take the mildest criticism as a personal attack on them. 

The fact the economy is resilient is taken to mean there will be no problems at all - ever.  Ask about "prospering like never before" and they will point out we haven't left yet. In other words their vision will take some time while any downsides, if not immediately apparent, are taken as a huge positive and don't you try to claim otherwise.

Martin Kettle has written a thoughtful piece on exactly this topic in The Guardian (HERE) and it makes very interesting if slightly frightening reading. It's subtitled "Brexiteers will trash anyone who gets in their way".

LEAVERS MOUNT A THIN PROTEST

Reuters reported earlier this week that protesters had gathered outside parliament to urge Mrs May to "get on with it" - the triggering of Article 50 - (HERE) and giving a figure of about 200 people. 

Now, we learn from The Independent (HERE) that organisers had invited 15,000 and of that number, 2000 had said they would attend but in the final analysis, The Independent say fewer than 100 turned up.  What a lot of enthusiasm!

DAVIS AND THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE

It has been revealed today in parliament that David Davis once tried to get a bill through the house which was called The Parliamentary Control of the Executive Act 1999 (HERE).

The purpose was as follows:

The following powers of Ministers of the Crown, relating to or entailing the use of the Crown prerogative, shall not be exercised on any occasion unless the assent of the House of Commons has first been obtained in accordance with section 2-

And it goes on to list virtually every possible occasion when the royal prerogative might be used.  It was never enacted but Mr Davis, asked about it in parliament this afternoon, refused to give any answer about whether or not he still supported it. He seemed to suggest it was only to be used to stop the PM going to war but it is clear in 1999 he had a much wider reach in mind.  Nowadays he is in favour of using the same royal prerogative that he was so peeved about in 1999.

What a hypocrite.

THE CHALLENGES OF BREXIT

The UK in a Changing Europe (see sidebar on the right) has produced an interesting pamphlet about what they call "the immense legal, constitutional and bureaucratic challenges involved in the Brexit process". Download it HERE.

It argues one of the first steps in the negotiations will be to decide if both a withdrawal and a trade agreement can be conducted in parallel.  This in itself must eat into the two year time frame.

They also see that a second referendum under the 2011 Act may be needed to approve any new treaty unless this Act is repealed - and I am not sure how parliament would be able to explain this away.

We will, according to them, have to reapply for WTO membership and other countries may drive a hard bargain for this.  And it may even be possible to unilaterally revoke article 50 but there may be troubling legal implications if we do.

I did not realise that there are some shared competences between the EU and the devolved administrations which don't pass through Westminster.  This will need to be revised but political problems are forecast if the devolved administrations seem to be losing power to Westminster.  There is much more in the pamphlet but in the conclusions are some important points:

In voting to leave the EU, the British people have unleashed a process potentially as complex as it is unpredictable.

The Brexit process will test the UK’s constitutional and legal frameworks and bureaucratic capacities to their limits - and possibly beyond

MAY WROTE PAMPHLET SAYING MPs SHOULD HAVE VETO

Mrs May's hypocrisy has been made clear with the news that she and her advisor Nick Timothy wrote a detailed pamphlet in 2007 (HERE) saying ministers should gain Parliamentary approval before talks with the European Union.  This is of course quite the opposite of what she is saying now.

The pamphlet is HERE.

It heaps praise on Denmark for the way that ministers have to obtain a mandate from the Danish parliament for their negotiating position  before" they go into any kind of negotiation with the EU. The discussions are held in private but a summary is published afterwards of the items on the agenda although the specific mandate remains private.

In the pamphlet she argues it should be impossible to override parliament.

HARD BREXIT LOOMS

Politico, a political website dealing with EU issues has picked up on a reply given by Mrs May to Edward Leigh in the House of Commons (HERE) where he asks, in a rather rambling question, if she thinks we should negotiate a free trade deal with the EU. She says she agrees.

This means we will be out of the single market but is in marked contrast to what she told bankers in a speech in May before the referendum where she says being outside the single market would damage our economy (HERE).

Taken together with he conference speech about not relinquishing control of immigration or accepting judgements from the ECJ, I think most people will think we are heading for a hard Brexit.

HYPOCRISY AND DAVID DAVIS

There have always been hypocrites in parliament and elsewhere but I used to think David Davis had something about him. Now I see he has the same feet of clay as all the others.

In a debate in 2002 on the Regional Assemblies Bill he was highly critical of John Prescott because a vote on the bill was being proposed before details of the assemblies powers and scope had been set out. He said this (HERE column 201):

In a democracy, voters have to know what they are voting for. They need to know what the choice is, to use his own word. For that to happen, the proposition has to come before the vote, but with the Bill, it will be vote first, proposition afterwards. The Bill proposes that referendums should be held without voters knowing the structure or powers of the assemblies for which they are asked to vote. Even the Deputy Prime Minister would have a hard job to convince anyone that that is democratic. 

Firstly, the 23rd June vote was against something and not for something. But also, now he is in the executive, he is proposing Mrs May and himself get to define what people voted for.  It is amazing that he can defend his position.  He went on to say:

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgement. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS LOOMS - WARNS REPORT

The Institute for Government has issued a report saying a constitutional crisis looms unless there is agreement by all the devolved governments on the negotiating position for the terms of Brexit (HERE).

Mrs May has today announced a "direct line" to David Davis for all the First Ministers, offering them a way to shape policy. Whether this will be enough remains to be seen. I would have thought they already had a direct line to David Davis so it doesn't look to me like anything new.