Wednesday 18th January 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning!

Well I ended yesterday so confused I've actually purchased a Guardian this morning to try and make sense of it.....

See you later

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Things I'm confused about:

1. The vote on the deal. As Hugo said with great certainty yesterday, well before clarification emerged from Downing Street, it appears that this vote will between the deal on offer and, and this is where I'm confused, no deal. I genuinely don't understand where this would leave the UK. On the one hand we would have triggered Article 50 committing us to leaving. On the other hand no amendments to any treaties would have been through Parliament. Is this something the opposition should seek to amend if the "plan" comes to the House?

2. Customs Union. What I gather is, exactly as Corbyn has warned, that banks and major corporations like Nissan are likely to get special deals on tariffs, opt ins if you like, while the rest of us have to pay to access the market. Is that actually politically tenable?

3. The Union. Did May offer anything but a few trite words to address the concerns of the devolved institutions?

4. Labour. What next? Any clues? I know they have said they will respond in due course, which is fair enough I guess. There's a lot to digest.

5. Supreme Court. We all thought their announcement was coming yesterday too. Any news? I suppose opposition tactics will need to take this into account.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

From the Sparrow

This morning David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been out giving interviews. And he has ruled out the prospect of parliament getting a chance to vote down Brexit.

Yesterday in her speech May announced that MPs and peers would get a vote on the final deal. This was the moment when sterling shot up, perhaps because City traders thought May was raising the prospect of parliament being able to vote for Britain to stay in the EU. In the Q&A afterwards May implied that this was not the case, and Downing Street firmed this up in the lobby briefing later. On the Today programme Davis made this explicit. Asked about the vote on the final Brexit deal, he said:

The second thing to say here is that parliament, remember, gave the decision on leaving to the people by a vast majority. It decided it was the people who make the decision in a referendum. So it is not for parliament to reverse that.

That means MPs and peers may get a choice between Brexit on the government’s terms or Brexit with no deal. But the government does not intend to give them the option of no Brexit at all.

My emphasis!

*Edited to say I know the vast majority thing is technically true because it refers to the vote to have the referendum.

[Willow904]

That seems to more or less cover it.

I would add, though, that I have noticed a few others have picked up on what Keir Starmer did yesterday, which is that some of the details of what Theresa May said didn't match the hard Brexit rhetoric. It's not as though the Tories aren't known to say one thing and do another, so I wouldn't count on anything happening just because May has said it will. In particular, she seemed to commit to retaining current terms for the financial sector, which surely is only possible if she signs up to the four freedoms of the single market. Stuff like this leaves yet more question marks about what exactly the red lines may be.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

That seems to more or less cover it.

I would add, though, that I have noticed a few others have picked up on what Keir Starmer did yesterday, which is that some of the details of what Theresa May said didn't match the hard Brexit rhetoric. It's not as though the Tories aren't known to say one thing and do another, so I wouldn't count on anything happening just because May has said it will. In particular, she seemed to commit to retaining current terms for the financial sector, which surely is only possible if she signs up to the four freedoms of the single market. Stuff like this leaves yet more question marks about what exactly the red lines may be.

Agreed. Labour really really should be able to make hay on this. A brexit deal for the rich bankers.....

[Willow904]

That seems to more or less cover it.

I would add, though, that I have noticed a few others have picked up on what Keir Starmer did yesterday, which is that some of the details of what Theresa May said didn't match the hard Brexit rhetoric. It's not as though the Tories aren't known to say one thing and do another, so I wouldn't count on anything happening just because May has said it will. In particular, she seemed to commit to retaining current terms for the financial sector, which surely is only possible if she signs up to the four freedoms of the single market. Stuff like this leaves yet more question marks about what exactly the red lines may be.

Agreed. Labour really really should be able to make hay on this. A brexit deal for the rich bankers.....

I do think Labour need to highlight what the impact of a full or "clean" Brexit would be and refer back to the Tory manifesto commitment to the single market repeatedly to drive the message home that what Theresa May is proposing goes way beyond anything that has been voted for in 2015 or in the referendum.

[RogerOThornhill]

rustinpeace ‏@rustinpeace00 31m31 minutes ago

@FleurFrench I know, they're all over the place. The Chief Pedant has started underlining bits from manifestos, hoping he can block Brexit!

I might add that to my FTN byline - Chief Pedant.

Not sure I'm a position to block Brexit though - our chum ascribes powers to me that seem to be out of all proportion to my position.

[SpinningHugo]

That seems to more or less cover it.

I would add, though, that I have noticed a few others have picked up on what Keir Starmer did yesterday, which is that some of the details of what Theresa May said didn't match the hard Brexit rhetoric. It's not as though the Tories aren't known to say one thing and do another, so I wouldn't count on anything happening just because May has said it will. In particular, she seemed to commit to retaining current terms for the financial sector, which surely is only possible if she signs up to the four freedoms of the single market. Stuff like this leaves yet more question marks about what exactly the red lines may be.

Agreed. Labour really really should be able to make hay on this. A brexit deal for the rich bankers.....

I do think Labour need to highlight what the impact of a full or "clean" Brexit would be and refer back to the Tory manifesto commitment to the single market repeatedly to drive the message home that what Theresa May is proposing goes way beyond anything that has been voted for in 2015 or in the referendum.

The leadership (Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne) are clearly not interested in doing that. Corbyn's response is all about what happens after Brexit and the kidn of country we then have. He is, unsurprisingly, much happier arguing for a free floating socialist paradise in contrast to May's vision of the UK as Singapore. See Newsnight last night

http://labourlist.org/2017/01/corbyn-te ... -services/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was the choice the members made when they rejected Owen Smith who would have taken a quite different approach, as he said during the campaign.

Poor old Starmer looks a fool. His reaction yesterday about how this wasn't Hard Brexit and how great it was that the Tories were doing what Labour gad asked for has discredited him.

There are still a few of the Evil Blairite Ultras arguing that leaving the single market really isn't very clever, but they have no weight as they are in the wrong party.

[RogerOThornhill]

That seems to more or less cover it.

I would add, though, that I have noticed a few others have picked up on what Keir Starmer did yesterday, which is that some of the details of what Theresa May said didn't match the hard Brexit rhetoric. It's not as though the Tories aren't known to say one thing and do another, so I wouldn't count on anything happening just because May has said it will. In particular, she seemed to commit to retaining current terms for the financial sector, which surely is only possible if she signs up to the four freedoms of the single market. Stuff like this leaves yet more question marks about what exactly the red lines may be.

Agreed. Labour really really should be able to make hay on this. A brexit deal for the rich bankers.....

I do think Labour need to highlight what the impact of a full or "clean" Brexit would be and refer back to the Tory manifesto commitment to the single market repeatedly to drive the message home that what Theresa May is proposing goes way beyond anything that has been voted for in 2015 or in the referendum.

This was put out by them yesterday.



But hey, what they promised less than two years ago is now utterly irrelevant despite the fact that all the main players in the government signed up to this.

[SpinningHugo]

Agreed. Labour really really should be able to make hay on this. A brexit deal for the rich bankers.....

I do think Labour need to highlight what the impact of a full or "clean" Brexit would be and refer back to the Tory manifesto commitment to the single market repeatedly to drive the message home that what Theresa May is proposing goes way beyond anything that has been voted for in 2015 or in the referendum.

This was put out by them yesterday.



But hey, what they promised less than two years ago is now utterly irrelevant despite the fact that all the main players in the government signed up to this.

For myself, I am not very impressed by this manifesto point. The referendum outcome has changed the landscape. Procedure again

Better off arguing on the substance I think.

[RogerOThornhill]

For myself, I am not very impressed by this manifesto point. The referendum outcome has changed the landscape. Procedure again

Better off arguing on the substance I think.

It was the same manifesto that promised a referendum.

Your point about the result might be valid if the referendum had come out of the blue with no mention of it in the manifesto.

Whether they actually gave any thought as to what might happen on either outcome is debatable but you can't say that because of a result one way or another another part of the manifesto can be set aside.

[Willow904]

Agreed. Labour really really should be able to make hay on this. A brexit deal for the rich bankers.....

I do think Labour need to highlight what the impact of a full or "clean" Brexit would be and refer back to the Tory manifesto commitment to the single market repeatedly to drive the message home that what Theresa May is proposing goes way beyond anything that has been voted for in 2015 or in the referendum.

This was put out by them yesterday.



But hey, what they promised less than two years ago is now utterly irrelevant despite the fact that all the main players in the government signed up to this.

The Tories had good reasons to commit to the single market 2 years ago and those good reasons are still there. Being in the single market isn't as good as being in the EU so in some ways the Tories feel they can't champion this option having led the charge to leave the EU, but there is no reason why Labour can't repeatedly point out the advantages of remaining in the single market, even if that means accepting free movement of people, over the hard Brexit Theresa May seems to be moving toward. Particularly there is the fact that a lot of our wealth is dependent on the City of London and the City of London is dependent on its access to the single market. This is difficult territory for Labour, but Keir Starmer can keep up the pressure on May here,even if Corbyn can't. Although there may be fears on the Labour side that this approach may alienate leave voters from Labour's heartlands, the advantages of pressing the Tory pressure points are clear. We have already had Tory donors threatening to withdraw funding if May takes us out of the single market. May can't be allowed to get away with presenting hard Brexit as the only option, it needs to be rammed home that this is the bad choice that it is and remain leaning Tory voters need to be reminded of what their party is on the cusp of negligently throwing away.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

It's very hard for anyone to assert that the vote to Leave was a vote to leave the Single Market.

The best that can be said about May's speech yesterday is that she's finally acknowledged that the UK cannot cherry pick. If we want immigration controls and to leave the European Court we have to leave the Single Market.

Of course, as posters are highlighting here, she then starts to cherry pick with bankers and car manufacturers....

[StephenDolan]

rustinpeace ‏@rustinpeace00 31m31 minutes ago

@FleurFrench I know, they're all over the place. The Chief Pedant has started underlining bits from manifestos, hoping he can block Brexit!

I might add that to my FTN byline - Chief Pedant.

Not sure I'm a position to block Brexit though - our chum ascribes powers to me that seem to be out of all proportion to my position.

Do it Rog, doooooo iiiiiiit!

[RogerOThornhill]

rustinpeace ‏@rustinpeace00 31m31 minutes ago

@FleurFrench I know, they're all over the place. The Chief Pedant has started underlining bits from manifestos, hoping he can block Brexit!

I might add that to my FTN byline - Chief Pedant.

Not sure I'm a position to block Brexit though - our chum ascribes powers to me that seem to be out of all proportion to my position.

Do it Rog, doooooo iiiiiiit!

Your wish is my command...

[StephenDolan]

On a positive note, May's speech has resolved the issue of the NHS. No more gloom and doom reporting.

[Willow904]

From the G liveblog:

Another French national paper, La Croix, put Trump and May side by side against a black backdrop and the headline: “Le Monde Chahute” - the world argues or bickers.

It goes on to say that the British prime minister has announced the details of Brexit, encouraged by Trump, while China’s leader Xi Jinping “poses as a defender of globalisation”.

With Trump taking the US back to isolationist protectionism and the Chinese championing free trade, the world does seem a bit upside down at the moment, but Eurosceptic Tories wanting to leave the EU is just business as normal really, the only difference being that this time they didn't have a leader strong enough to stand up to them. Even having accidentally taken us out, Cameron could still have salvaged something by staying in place and pursuing a "Norway option" as the perfect compromise of keeping the free trade bit of the EU Tories like whilst leaving the political union that demanded "ever closer union" that they don't. So here we find ourselves because an arrogant, lazy Eton toff couldn't be arsed to do the job he thought he'd be rather good at. And what an awful place we are. Needless and easily avoidable uncertainty and economic woe.

[nickyinnorfolk]

A lot of words have been said about May's Brexit speech. However, to quote a disillusioned Johnny Rotten on the last ever date of the Pistols' disastrous tour in the US: 'Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?'

Rob Manuel's picture on Twitter sums it up. May is even wearing nearly the same outfit as Johnny R.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nickyinnorfolk]

Incidentally I can't believe May thought that (no doubt eye watering expensive) tartan Westwood trouser suit was a good look. That combination of baggy trousers and her massive feet. She looks like an escapee from the circus - that or a Little Britain character (see today's German newspapers).

I'd say she's a national embarrassment but she's worse than that.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

A lot of words have been said about May's Brexit speech. However, to quote a disillusioned Johnny Rotten on the last ever date of the Pistols' disastrous tour in the US: 'Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?'

Rob Manuel's picture on Twitter sums it up. May is even wearing nearly the same outfit as Johnny R.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's excellent. I don't suppose he'll mind us sharing the photo montage

[SpinningHugo]

On a positive note, May's speech has resolved the issue of the NHS. No more gloom and doom reporting.

They are through it (at least the winter crisis) for the year. There is a sharp uptick in demand at the start of January because people postpone seeking medical care over the Xmas break. That uptick has been and gone. There'll only be another bout of the same if the weather deteriorates.

That isn't meant to deny the reality of the serious problem, just that in news terms they are probably through the worst.

[gilsey]

I think Paul's third point, the Union, could be a very interesting one for future historians. How did the Conservative and Unionist Party move so far from its name?

I can't see how they're going to square the circle of keeping NI in the UK and leaving the EU. The govt seem to have their eyes shut, hoping something will turn up.

There must be some kind of way out of here.

[gilsey]

Incidentally I can't believe May thought that (no doubt eye watering expensive) tartan Westwood trouser suit was a good look. That combination of baggy trousers and her massive feet. She looks like an escapee from the circus - that or a Little Britain character (see today's German newspapers).

I'd say she's a national embarrassment but she's worse than that.

She's had that suit for yonks and her hair was a mess, not good enough.

Meeoow.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Incidentally I can't believe May thought that (no doubt eye watering expensive) tartan Westwood trouser suit was a good look. That combination of baggy trousers and her massive feet. She looks like an escapee from the circus - that or a Little Britain character (see today's German newspapers)

Well, the Daily Mail liked it and - as with everything else yesterday - that's all that matters

[HindleA]

Rusty and colleagues,on assumption they aren't actually parodies:-I find it hard to believe they are actually that ignorant.Imagine spending your days in ever more desperate failing attempts to agitate to make yourselves feel superior,particularly the sick/disabled.One was so incredibly stupid they bemoaned laziness in people getting home deliveries of specialist prescriptions when it was the only way they could get them/contracted via hospital.Agitate as in an annoying occasional buzzing sound.

[AngryAsWell]

Anna Soubry MPVerified account
‏@Anna_Soubry
The result of our failure to make positive case #SingleMarket #FreeMovement & explain consequences of abandoning both

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

T May in "the sound of madness"

[gilsey]

On a positive note, May's speech has resolved the issue of the NHS. No more gloom and doom reporting.

For the moment.
I'll be very surprised if the NHS isn't back in the headlines soon.

[AngryAsWell]

JP Morgan Warns Theresa May’s Brexit Threats Are ‘Very Dangerous’ For UK Jobs
Her plan lacks credibility and a ‘damaging’ exit for service sector

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... zdjb5wxw29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

One insightful angle I noted amongst all the (often rather unilluminating) commentary yesterday - May's speech was arguably a big act of bravado to obfuscate the reality that she now knows she is no longer FULLY IN CONTROL of the Brexit process. Her "control freak" tendencies are well known, and this is something that she will genuinely detest.

[gilsey]

JPMorgan.
https://markets.jpmorgan.com/research/e ... -2229790-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The notion that the UK can simply “fall back” to WTO rules as providing an alternative (as summarised in “no deal is better than a bad deal”) is, in our view, very dangerous. Significant parts of the UK service sector would, under these conditions, lose their ability to provide services to EU-based counterparties overnight. Much of the plumbing that supports trade in goods and services on a day-to- day basis would be left without defined administrative processes and legal foundation. The imposition of tariffs is almost a side show relative to these issues. In addition, the UK is threatening that under constrained market access it would reinvent itself as a pseudo-Singapore of Northern Europe via low corporate tax rates and a ‘new economic model’. We note that the success of such low-tax entrepots has typically been at least partially based on the ability of firms to access markets in their locale, not on the withdrawal of that access. And, as we wrote yesterday, it is far from clear that there is a durable political commitment to the UK becoming a permanently low-corporate tax, low-regulation locale.

The bit I've picked out is the part that's been most worrying me from the beginning, the 'plumbing'.

[HindleA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


'Wheelchair v buggy': Man wins Supreme Court case

(Stupid headline)

[AngryAsWell]

British airlines band together to fight for continued access to European skies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... access-to/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit – Over & Out

Frontier Economics’ Dan Elliott explores the implications of the vote for the aviation industry both in the UK and across Europe.

http://www.airport-business.com/2016/10/brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The urgent need to tackle the crisis in adult social care

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Children unnecessarily removed from parents, report claims
Dossier indicates drive to increase adoptions is punitive for low-income families and alternatives exist

[StephenDolan]

A question or two on Johnson would be good.


Also Kuenssberg. Slap that wrist.

[HindleA]

https://www.ft.com/content/211e3024-dca ... 53db7791c6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Have you fallen into an income tax trap?
Quirks in the tax system mean some pay marginal rates of 60 per cent or more

[HindleA]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... ourt-rules" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



EHRC on court ruling:-
Wheelchair spaces on buses must be a priority, court rules

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone.

[citizenJA]

For myself, I am not very impressed by this manifesto point. The referendum outcome has changed the landscape. Procedure again

Better off arguing on the substance I think.

It was the same manifesto that promised a referendum.

Your point about the result might be valid if the referendum had come out of the blue with no mention of it in the manifesto.

Whether they actually gave any thought as to what might happen on either outcome is debatable but you can't say that because of a result one way or another another part of the manifesto can be set aside.

Taking the UK out of the single market can be vetoed on the basis it's not in the Tory manifesto.

[citizenJA]

Article 50 trigger can be vetoed because Tory government then commits the UK to leaving the single market (?)
Anyone?

[HindleA]

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... y/CBP-7551" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

House of Commons Library

Brexit: how does the Article 50 process work?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ate-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour

[Willow904]

Article 50 trigger can be vetoed because Tory government then commits the UK to leaving the single market (?)
Anyone?

A bill to trigger article 50 can be opposed by a majority in the house for any reason they want if the supreme court rules only parliament can legally trigger it. I'm not aware there is any likelihood of such a majority against, though. I suppose it would technically mean the House of Lords could reject it, even if passed by the Commons, but again it's not a likely thing. Its significance is in the Tories reneging on a manifesto promise. Although the Tories frequently renege on manifesto promises, this particular U-turn will potentially not go down well with their banker donors from the City, so is worth drawing attention to. If the Tories were to lose the confidence of key players in the financial and business sectors it could seriously damage them as a party.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Article 50 trigger can be vetoed because Tory government then commits the UK to leaving the single market (?)
Anyone?

A bill to trigger article 50 can be opposed by a majority in the house for any reason they want if the supreme court rules only parliament can legally trigger it. I'm not aware there is any likelihood of such a majority against, though. I suppose it would technically mean the House of Lords could reject it, even if passed by the Commons, but again it's not a likely thing. Its significance is in the Tories reneging on a manifesto promise. Although the Tories frequently renege on manifesto promises, this particular U-turn will potentially not go down well with their banker donors from the City, so is worth drawing attention to. If the Tories were to lose the confidence of key players in the financial and business sectors it could seriously damage them as a party.

This last point may emerge as the key battleground.

A single market for bankers and Japanese corporations while the plebs flounder isn't a good luck.

[AnatolyKasparov]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... ate-labour

bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour

This was leaked a few weeks ago. Unusual for them to be so forthright.

[SpinningHugo]

May just won at PMQs because Labour has no substantive opposition to what she is doing. All process and no substance. "You should have given the speech in Parliament."

[RogerOThornhill]

Who was it yesterday asking for the leave campaigners arguing for staying in the single market at one point?

[youtube]0xGt3QmRSZY[/youtube]

[citizenJA]

Article 50 trigger can be vetoed because Tory government then commits the UK to leaving the single market (?)
Anyone?

A bill to trigger article 50 can be opposed by a majority in the house for any reason they want if the supreme court rules only parliament can legally trigger it. I'm not aware there is any likelihood of such a majority against, though. I suppose it would technically mean the House of Lords could reject it, even if passed by the Commons, but again it's not a likely thing. Its significance is in the Tories reneging on a manifesto promise. Although the Tories frequently renege on manifesto promises, this particular U-turn will potentially not go down well with their banker donors from the City, so is worth drawing attention to. If the Tories were to lose the confidence of key players in the financial and business sectors it could seriously damage them as a party.

Starmer (Labour) focusing on Tories taking the UK out of the single market might be a strategy for opposition.

[Willow904]

Article 50 trigger can be vetoed because Tory government then commits the UK to leaving the single market (?)
Anyone?

A bill to trigger article 50 can be opposed by a majority in the house for any reason they want if the supreme court rules only parliament can legally trigger it. I'm not aware there is any likelihood of such a majority against, though. I suppose it would technically mean the House of Lords could reject it, even if passed by the Commons, but again it's not a likely thing. Its significance is in the Tories reneging on a manifesto promise. Although the Tories frequently renege on manifesto promises, this particular U-turn will potentially not go down well with their banker donors from the City, so is worth drawing attention to. If the Tories were to lose the confidence of key players in the financial and business sectors it could seriously damage them as a party.

This last point may emerge as the key battleground.

A single market for bankers and Japanese corporations while the plebs flounder isn't a good luck.

It would be possible to compensate Japanese car companies for any additional costs they incur from new arrangements, but surely passporting rights for the financial sector will only ever be available with full single market membership and the continued free movement that implies.

This is why I'm still unsure as to whether Theresa May is serious about "hard" Brexit or not. I can see why the option is appealing politically, helping her retain those kipper votes, but it risks losing the Tories key financial backing and support. Is it possible Theresa May intends to win a 2020 election as the Ukip lite option, having secured the City transitional passporting rights, only to U-turn on re-election and negotiate a "soft" Brexit after all?

Or am I crediting her with far too much devious cunning?

Still, always best to assume Tories are lying. We will only truly know her intentions when she actually does something.