GrahamH wrote:Labour Leave, Gisela Stuart and the Leave campaign's red bus touring Labour heartlands might be the key reasons why people were confused about Labour's position on Brexit, rather than Corbyn's 7 out of 10.

Byron wrote:If it can't be, all the more reason to put exit terms to a vote before triggering Article 50. If a majority honestly thought full access minus obligations was possible, their mandate can't be fulfilled. They can, however, he asked to specify what they do want, whether that's EEA, hard Brexit, or, in light of the implications of both, continued EU membership. If they want hard Brext, that's their right, but it shouldn't be entered into under any illusions.

The consequences for Northern Ireland and Scotland also need to be given full consideration in England and Wales, and if both still want to go ahead with Brexit, must be prepared to make the necessary provisions for the other members of the UK.

However messy the situation, a way forward must be found that provides the best outcomes for all interested parties, including of course the rest of the EU.

logical bob wrote:If Theresa May does seek to invoke A50 without involving parliament she'll be doing MPs a massive favour by sparing them the choice between voting in accordance with their own views and respecting the outcome of the referendum and excusing them from the electoral calculations GrahamH has been outlining above. Parliamentary sovereignty on this issue was abandoned when a referendum was called. No point muddling things up now.

logical bob wrote:A pre-negotiation referendum like that what be a major dereliction of duty by the government. Their role is now to secure the best available deal on access to the single market. Committing now to one of the binary options of the EEA and hard Brexit would be to fail to even try to do that. It may be that no intermediate position is possible, but we don't know that in advance.

The "necessary provisions" for Scotland and Northern Ireland are not in the gift of the UK government. In the face of the obvious Spanish and Belgian veto the EU is under no obligation whatsoever to accommodate subsets of the UK, as they've already made plain. You can seek some kind of arrangement at the negotiations but you can't promise one at the outset. Scotland has, in any case, only just made an active decision to continue to subordinate its foreign policy to the UK and will have to take the consequences of that or seek independence. Yes, the SNP argued that Brexit should require the separate endorsement of all 4 parts of the UK, but that was what newer members of the Labour party call a transitional demand - it was obviously never going to happen and the claim was intended to strengthen the case for independence if the Brexit vote turned out as it has done. Do you really think "necessary provisions" would have been made for England and Wales if the vote had been 52-48 the other way?

Byron wrote:Surprising to see a supporter of Scottish independence repeating the hoary "Spanish veto" line: Spain has never threatened to veto Scottish membership of the EU (but a Spanish minister has threatened to veto any Brexit deal that maintains British sovereignty of Gibraltar).

It's not at all clear that, if an EU member state divides, Scotland would have to leave and rejoin (the situation's never arisen); it's not at all clear that rUK would be the successor state (since the UK only came into existence with the union of England and Scotland); and in any case, if Scotland must rejoin with threat of veto, given the sovereign will of the Scottish people, it's the duty of the British state to delay Brexit until Scotland's membership can be secured. As a nationalist, you surely agree?

logical bob wrote:I didn't say Spain would veto the EU membership of an independent Scotland. The Spanish PM came out very quickly, however, against an arrangement where Scotland remained part of the UK and also part of the EU.

The rest of your comments are also predicated on Scottish independence but, as we've discussed across two threads, there's little sign at present that Scotland wants that to happen. You keep pointing out that Scotland's sovereign will is to remain in the EU, but Scotland's sovereign will is also to remain in the UK. We seem to want to have our cake and eat it.

Byron wrote:If you're referring only to the Greenland option, fair enough: what exactly have Spain and Belgium said about this? Does it contain an explicit veto threat? If it does, given that the UK wouldn't be leaving the EU, just some parts of it, it's not at all clear they'd even have that power.

But acting Spanish prime minister Mr Rajoy said after a summit of EU leaders in Brussels that he wanted to be "very clear Scotland does not have the competence to negotiate with the European Union".

He added: "Spain opposes any negotiation by anyone other than the government of United Kingdom.
I am extremely against it, the treaties are extremely against it and I believe everyone is extremely against it. If the United Kingdom leaves... Scotland leaves."

Meanwhile, Mr Hollande said: "The negotiations will be conducted with the United Kingdom, not with a part of the United Kingdom".

Theresa May 'acting like Tudor monarch' by denying MPs a Brexit vote

Prime minister’s lawyers argue that parliamentary approval not required to trigger article 50

Theresa May has been accused of displaying the “arrogance of a Tudor monarch” over her reported intention to deny a parliamentary vote on Brexit before beginning the process of pulling the UK out of the European Union.

The prime minister is allegedly planning to prevent MPs from voting on the decision to leave the EU before article 50, the legislation that will trigger the UK’s formal exit from the bloc, is triggered.
There has been a post-referendum debate over whether the result is merely advisory, as the act that created it did not specify whether the result would be binding. Some have argued a vote should be held in parliament to ratify the result.

The Daily Telegraph reported that May had been told by government lawyers that she did not need parliamentary approval to trigger the procedure, but it is believed that the prime minister could face legal challenges over the decision.
More...

logical bob wrote:

Byron wrote:If you're referring only to the Greenland option, fair enough: what exactly have Spain and Belgium said about this? Does it contain an explicit veto threat? If it does, given that the UK wouldn't be leaving the EU, just some parts of it, it's not at all clear they'd even have that power.

But acting Spanish prime minister Mr Rajoy said after a summit of EU leaders in Brussels that he wanted to be "very clear Scotland does not have the competence to negotiate with the European Union".

He added: "Spain opposes any negotiation by anyone other than the government of United Kingdom.
I am extremely against it, the treaties are extremely against it and I believe everyone is extremely against it. If the United Kingdom leaves... Scotland leaves."

Meanwhile, Mr Hollande said: "The negotiations will be conducted with the United Kingdom, not with a part of the United Kingdom".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-36656980

Theresa May calls Brexit meeting amid reports of single market split

Number of senior figures thought to believe all options including staying part of economic area should remain on table

Theresa May is to meet her cabinet at Chequers after asking for each minister to report back on how they believe Britain can make a success of Brexit in their areas.

The meeting on Wednesday comes amid reports of a government split over whether or not the UK government should attempt to retain membership of the single market.

A number of senior figures, including the chancellor, Philip Hammond, according to the Sunday Times, are thought to believe that all options including staying part of the economic area should remain on the table.

....
Some Brexit supporters believe European countries will give the UK tariff-free trade alongside restrictions to immigration, but many others expect there to be an economic price to pay for greater border control.
More...

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Theresa May calls Brexit meeting amid reports of single market split

Number of senior figures thought to believe all options including staying part of economic area should remain on table

Theresa May is to meet her cabinet at Chequers after asking for each minister to report back on how they believe Britain can make a success of Brexit in their areas.

The meeting on Wednesday comes amid reports of a government split over whether or not the UK government should attempt to retain membership of the single market.

A number of senior figures, including the chancellor, Philip Hammond, according to the Sunday Times, are thought to believe that all options including staying part of the economic area should remain on the table.

....
Some Brexit supporters believe European countries will give the UK tariff-free trade alongside restrictions to immigration, but many others expect there to be an economic price to pay for greater border control.
More...

Just when are Brexiteers going to wake up to reality?

mrjonno wrote:The poor, unemployed and people on zero hour contracts will stay poor and almost certainly wont notice Brexit (unless their benefits are cuts). This is entirely about dragging the middle classes down to their level

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The poor, unemployed and people on zero hour contracts will stay poor and almost certainly wont notice Brexit (unless their benefits are cuts). This is entirely about dragging the middle classes down to their level

I don't know what this means, or if it's a reply to a point, or a random prediction. I don't understand.

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The poor, unemployed and people on zero hour contracts will stay poor and almost certainly wont notice Brexit (unless their benefits are cuts). This is entirely about dragging the middle classes down to their level

I don't know what this means, or if it's a reply to a point, or a random prediction. I don't understand.

Warren Dew wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The poor, unemployed and people on zero hour contracts will stay poor and almost certainly wont notice Brexit (unless their benefits are cuts). This is entirely about dragging the middle classes down to their level

I don't know what this means, or if it's a reply to a point, or a random prediction. I don't understand.

He's saying that the reality is that "leave" voters won't be hurt by Brexit ("unless their benefits are cut"), and what they get out of it is a more egalitarian Britain where the more affluent middle class is dragged down toward their level. Basically he's agreeing with you.

Warren Dew wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The poor, unemployed and people on zero hour contracts will stay poor and almost certainly wont notice Brexit (unless their benefits are cuts). This is entirely about dragging the middle classes down to their level

I don't know what this means, or if it's a reply to a point, or a random prediction. I don't understand.

He's saying that the reality is that "leave" voters won't be hurt by Brexit ("unless their benefits are cut"), and what they get out of it is a more egalitarian Britain where the more affluent middle class is dragged down toward their level. Basically he's agreeing with you.

Meet the Swedish politician ready to play hardball with the UK on Brexit

Cecilia Malmström, the EU trade commissioner, will take a hard line on new trade deals

During the febrile, topsy-turvy days after Britain voted to leave the European Union, there were plenty of tough messages from European leaders. But few sounded more uncompromising than the EU trade commissioner.

A week after the result, Cecilia Malmström, Europe’s lead trade negotiator, stated that the UK could not even begin discussing a trade deal until it had left the bloc. “First you exit and then you negotiate the terms of the relationship,” she told Newsnight, opening up the prospect of the world’s sixth-largest economy being left dangling for years. When the BBC interviewer suggested this would damage businesses in Britain and on the continent, her response was straightforward: “Yes, but the vote was very clear.”

Such plain speaking provoked fury among leading Brexiters. Conservative MP Liam Fox condemned her remarks as “bizarre and stupid”. While legally correct that Britain cannot sign a trade deal before it has left, by taking such a tough line against early negotiations, she walked into a political minefield.

In a few months’ time, Fox, since appointed Britain’s secretary of state for international trade, may find himself sitting opposite Malmström. Nobody knows exactly how big a role the 48-year-old Swede will play in Brussels’s team Brexit. Michel Barnier, the silver-haired former French foreign minister, has been given the task of leading Brexit talks by European commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. Meanwhile, Belgian diplomat Didier Seeuws is handling Brexit for his boss, European council president Donald Tusk. Another EU president, Martin Schulz of the European parliament, is unlikely to stay quiet, as MEPs have a vote on the UK divorce and any subsequent trade deal.
More...