POLITICS CORNER

[Tripps]

I've been impressed by how well she has stood up to the immense pressure.

I think yesterday qualified her for 'care in the community' . I watched quite a lot of her Parliamentary performance. She was openly laughed at - by her own side - and an appeal to her supporters to put up their hands to show that support got no takers. Speaker after speaker from all political quarters said that this was not Brexit. She ignored them all, and repeatedly said that it was.

When does ' a bloody difficult woman' become a candidate for Section Two of the Mental Health Act?

"you need to be detained for a short time for assessment and possibly medical treatment, and it is necessary for your own health or safety or for the protection of other people"

Interestingly the ECJ has now said that we are breaking the law in our management of our winter electrical power supply.

[Stanley]

This GUARDIAN REPORT on the opinions of Professor Alston, the UN rapporteur on poverty, is worth reading. It covers all the bases and note that it reinforces my theory that since 2010 there has been an unspoken policy in the Tory Party to force the poor back into the 19th Century. (Dangerous and seductive.... I know!)
As for Gove, keeping his red box and limo is dead in line with his character and does nothing to reassure me....
The ERG race for 48 letters appears to be going badly. Perhaps Ken Clark was right. Imagine going back to your constituents and justifying ditching a leader when there is no obvious candidate. remember also that in order for the internal vote to succeed it needs 158 supporters. This could be a Brexiteer own goal and I think T May and her advisers have sussed this out also. They may have changed tack.... see THIS BBC report on a group of five Brexiteers in the Cabinet trying to get changes directly from May.
Who is Stephen Barclay?
As usual, in the turmoil of fast moving events some news items are buried. See THIS BBC report about a Labour MP, Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya's trial at the Old Bailey. In normal circumstances this would be headline news in the right wing media and even in those news outlets with more balance. I haven't seen a word about it.

[Tripps]

In normal circumstances this would be headline news in the right wing media and even in those news outlets with more balance. I haven't seen a word about it.

Maybe you don't look in the right places? Try here - Guido Fawkes You didn't like it last time I referred to that site, but he is important in modern media, and often sets the news agenda for more main stream outfits.

This type of 'news outlet' goes some way to explaining why the Johnson Press has appointed administrators. I don't do Facebook (so last year says my granddaughter) or Snapnumpty (as Andrew Neil calls it ) but they are even more influential with 'ordinary people.

[Tripps]

In case I needed a reminder as to why I renewed my subscription to The Spectator look at this -

Brexit the small print

Anyone trying to persuade us that this is Brexit is delusional. Mrs May must have at best a 'personality disorder' or more likely is totally crazy.

[Tizer]

The Onasanya trial has been in The Times recently and on the radio, and The Times had a long piece on it yesterday.

Tripps, the Spectator web site article is subscriber only.

[Tripps]

Sorry - the link was on Guido Fawkes - I assumed it was accessible.
Here you are - don't tell anyone. Call it an advert for the Speccie.
One seems to have got lost, but you will get the gist.

This week, Theresa May’s government teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May’s remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared ‘a deal is better than no deal’. This is rather different to May’s old claim that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.

So, is Fox right? Mr S thought it best to let readers decide for themselves. In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means. Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be made to last forever (Article 132). And even if a successor deal is agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

Just in case readers don’t have the time to go through the lengthly document themselves, Steerpike has compiled a list of the top 40 horrors lurking in the small print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal:

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to 31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK will still be signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules (like VAT and ECJ supervision) for a further eight years. Some clauses have, quite literally, a “lifetime” duration (Art.39). If the UK defaults on transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and, realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. Perhaps most damagingly of all, we agree to sign away the rights we would have, under international law, to unilaterally walk away. Again, what follows relates (in most part) for the “transition” period. But the language is consistent with the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

The top 40 horrors:

1. From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.
2. May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
3. The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
4. The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
5. The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
6. Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
7. “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
8. Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
9. The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
10. Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
11.The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
12. The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
13. The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
14. The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 8)
15. The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
16. All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
17. Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
18. The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
19. Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
20. Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
21. The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)
22. The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)
23. The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
24. The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
25. We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
26. The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
27. The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
28. Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
29. The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
30. Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
31. The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
32. The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
33. The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
34. The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
35. And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
36. The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
37. The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
38. The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
39. And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

See also

[Stanley]

You are all right, I am not reading my mainstream media widely enough. I still believe that other news is being swamped by Brexit.....
Johnston Press own the Barlick and Earby Times. Click the link for the latest situation. I note that the shareholders have been wiped out and the Pension Fund transferred to the government protection scheme.....

[plaques]

Thanks Tripps, says he lying down in a dark room, The Spectator has pulled out some of the more salient points, all rather negative, but it just demonstrates that at our 585 pages starter for ten would need months of study before the full meaning is to be understood. How much our MP's understand beyond its affect on their salaries and pensions is probably zero. Safe in their hands I don't think so.

[Tizer]

Yes, thanks for that Tripps. All very interesting but Bruff could have summarised it for them in a few pithy and humorous paragraphs.

On a different topic, slightly off track for here...I listened to a radio programme about inheritance and it got me thinking. People make wills to be sure that their assets go where they intend them to. Or at least that is what we used to believe. Some things like wills were `set in stone' but now that's changing. Wills are being challenged in court and over-turned, with assets re-directed. Valuable and important material gifted to museums and art galleries for posterity is being sold off. Business giants such as Google are gaming the law and the tax authorities. Have we seen the end of `set in stone'? Is everything up for grabs now?

Later...I've just read one of Ian's posts and it reminds me to add the 1950s WASPI ladies to those who are seeing `set in stone' no longer applies.

[Stanley]

The point that jumped out at me was the first one, that the EU wrote the draft. Now that was news to me, the impression has been given that it was the work of our civil servants and negotiators. At 585 pages (including legal checking) the EU secretariat must have been working on the text for months, you don't produce a watertight suicide note like that in a couple of days.
I saw a mention somewhere that in the new government that will follow the ERG No Confidence motion (If they ever get there....) Jacob Rees Mogg is putting in a bid for Chancellor of the E chequer.... Good Grief!!
Where is Master Johnson?
The only thing I approved of in the latest reshuffle was bringing Amber Rudd back in at Work and Pensions, a bit of well deserved recompense for the shabby way she was treated at the Home Office.
I see that T may said that next week will be yet another vital stage..... Watching all this, Cameron must have locked himself in his garden shed.....

[plaques]

The point that jumped out at me was the first one, that the EU wrote the draft.

We now hear that she is off to Brussels to discuss the draft deal. Perhaps she will be asking what it really means and would they be kind enough to explain it to her. Probably come back waving a bit of paper and declaring 'Peace in our Time'.
It looks like a commons vote will take place forcing her to publish of the economic prospects on the various effects different Brexit Scenarios would have on the UK Link. The three levels vary from... in the s..t, to deep s..t. No wonder she wants to keep it secret. The line she is taking at the moment is Quote...
'Ms May and other ministers have refused to specifically say they would publish such an analysis, and have instead stuck to the more vague line that MPs would be given the “appropriate information” before voting on Ms May’s Brexit plans.' Talk about mushroom management.

[Pluggy]

Probably come back waving a bit of paper and declaring 'Peace in our Time'.

[Tizer]

Where is Master Johnson?

I'll tell you where Boris is (or was) and you can make what you will of it. One evening last week he dined with his father and Nigel Farage in a fancy London restaurant. The proof is in a photo published in the Daily Mirror. What are they scheming? Farage is a factor that has been neglected of late. He recently said he would return to sort out Brexit for the public if the Government didn't get on with it in a satisfactory way. Let's not under-estimate his potential for disruption. There's lots of angry people about who'd like a Mussolini to come along and make the trains run on time. The Government and the Opposition both have major problems and it's an opportunity for an outsider, someone who you and I would say could never succeed. Think Trump...

[Bruff]

One widely-reported matter these past days has been the five Cabinet Ministers staying on to try and steer the PM towards a different agreement with the EU by re-opening negotiations. Quite aside from there being no alternative agreement to be had, let’s have a look at this quintet of all the talents.

Shall we start with Andrea ‘Mother’ Leadsom? Mother Leadsom styles herself as a former banker and it was presumably on this basis that she found herself as a Treasury Minister under the previous PM. Utterly incapable of understanding even the most simply briefing on the most simple Treasury matters, her civil servants eventually withheld everything from her save signing off on the tea and biscuits (I exaggerate a little for effect). Clearly promotion material, Mother Leadsom found herself as Environment Secretary where the civil servants in time realised the same approach was necessary – she was just as clueless on even the basic matters associated with the Environment brief. In the Shakespearean tragedy that is Brexit, we really should not have to concern ourselves with what the third spear carrier is up to

On to Dr Liam Fox or to give him his full title DFDS Dr Liam Fox, or Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox. In normal times, running a shadow foreign and defence policy would rather suggest you are ill-equipped to serve as a legislator, let alone coupled with a cavalier approach to security arrangements for close friends called Adam. But these are not normal times. DFDS Fox is now trade secretary, specifically international trade and while we remain the EU a role with no role if you like. He did have one thing to do though and that was to position the UK for its future WTO schedules. Alas just 3 short weeks ago, after two long years, his proposals were summarily dismissed by for example Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada….ouch!

On now to Failing ‘Chris’ Grayling. Probation services; prison crisis; legal aid; HS2; Northern Rail; Southern Trains. There is little else to be said of Failing, or ‘Chris’.

And so to Penny Mordaunt. This is the MP who, for a bet, stood up in Parliament to give a speech in which she would use the word ‘cock’ as many times as possible. And she duly did. It’s there in Hansard. I think she got the word ‘cock’ in 10 or so time. Oh the hilarity…

And the last one, Gove? He’s normal compared to this lot….

Richard Broughton

[Tripps]

Great post Richard - where do you get all this info from? Where's the like / uptick box?

Was it ever so with our elected politicians? Is it just the greater exposure from modern communication which gives us more knowledge of their shortcomings?

I first saw Ms Mordaunt replying to the Queen's speech which was all good fun - as it is traditionally intended to be. Penny Mordaunt

The other one is also on Youtube, but not as amusing. It's said she did it for a bet - probably seemed like a good idea, late at night after a mess dinner.

I'd say these things are part of being British - I'd like to see Mr Trump do 'Presidents Questions' in a similar setting.

[Bruff]

Tittle-tattle and gossip Tripps. The trials of DFDS Fox and the WTO schedules were in the press the other week. The issue is we have no schedules as we are a part of the EU’s. Fox argued that we could just spilt something out pro rata. The adults in the room argued that was a none runner as the UK out of the EU is not the UK in the EU and so the basis for any pro rata apportioning was different. This was made clear more or less straight after the referendum but as they say, God loves a tryer.

Quite a few people refer to Mother Leadsom – it’s a legacy of the Tory leadership contest after Cameron hot-footed it faster than you can say £800K book-advance. Every pitch she made was prefaced with ‘Speaking as a mother……’, I think as a sisterly demonstration of her fecundity in contrast to the ‘barren’ May. Nice.

Poor old Failing has a litany of calamities next to his name, with him being the constant. So to seems clear to me where the problem is.

On whether standards are worse now, the philosopher Roger Scruton has an interesting take on elected chambers and their reflecting the people (admittedly he uses it as an argument for hereditary positions). If we want our representatives to truly reflect the people then for every clever-dick we should have some blethering idiots (and hereditary, not being -self-selecting, likely delivers this). I do think in the past the blethering idiots were probably well-represented (in his book The Political Animal Jeremy Paxman notes that one current MP at the time of his writing believed, really truly believed, that No 10 was run by a witches coven out of Herefordshire). But they didn’t get to Ministerial office. Think Burnaby Drayson.

May has addressed the CBI. She was clear. EU nationals will not be able to ‘jump the queue’. She should have been more honest. She should have said in future, UK nationals too will not be able to jump the queue. Free movement works both ways.

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

Great stuff, Richard, keep it up! Reading comments about the quality of our politicians reminds me of Blair and his attraction to that lady Carol Caplin; and Gove telling teachers to use the grammar book from that weird pedant (can't remember his name).

[Stanley]

Good stuff Richard and dead in line with my favourite source, Private Eye over the years. And yes, they keep mentioning Werrity, they know something....... As for Grayling.... they ought to call him sadiM, everything he touches turns to crap. Very impressed by the Honourable Mention for Burnaby Drayson, the worst MP ever, he buggered my vote for years when Earby was in the Skipton Constituency. Let's also hear it for Waddington the Home Secretary who announced to the world he was leaving his wife but forgot to tell her.......
As for the present situation, ever been in a loaded wagon on a hill and the brake pedal has gone flat to the boards with no effect?
Mind you, there is one lovely bit of irony in the wind. If the ERG have difficulty getting the rabid wing of the Party to send in a letter how can they hope to get the number of votes needed for a majority. Is it 158?

[Bruff]

It’s just dreadful isn’t it?

Take the PM talking about EU nationals queue jumping. It’s a quite deliberate turn of phrase that. The anthropologist Kate Fox, quoting someone I can’t recall, noted that left to their own devices, an English person will form an orderly queue of one. The point being that even waiting on your own at the bus stop, the English person will stand right by the stop itself, not loiter aimlessly in its general vicinity. Queue jumping breaks a deep-seated social norm in this country and so what better way to sow the idea that there is a one-way advantage than refer to EU national ‘queue-jumping’? Utterly appalling but quite deliberate. ‘They’ take and/or have all the advantage(s) is the message. And it’s lapped up. The utter stupidity that spoken about ‘free movement’ is astonishing. The rest of the EU looks on aghast.

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

That struck me as well Richard. The level of manipulation of the public that we are seeing reminds me of WW2 propaganda.
"The rest of the EU looks on aghast." As well they might. We have demonstrated to everyone in Europe that we are an insular bunch of xenophobes. Strange when you consider that most of our DNA points directly to European ancestry. Throughout this process I have complained about the complete absence of any evidence that we care for our standing in the wider world (Apart from retaining our seat on the UN Security Council) No evidence of principle or will to act on the global stage as a respected partner. No matter what happens now we have ruined whatever respect we had. This is sad.....

[plaques]

No wonder we are xenophobic just look at our history. Our most recent enemy were the Germans from where we get our royal family so we may go easy on them. But the French, our tradition enemies, only gave us laws and government. We don't want that to happen again. Then our distant past enemies were the Romans (Italy). Made us literate and built roads. No wonder we don't want anything to do with Johnny Foreigner they may drag us into the 21st century and that wouldn't do would it?. Better off by ourselves were we can turn the clock back to the dark ages and do as we are told. .

[plaques]

A short while ago the question was asked was it possible to remain in the EU if we wanted to. Corbyn said NO for the good reason that the government said that Brexit was going to happen therefore the question was hypothetical. So in this respect Corbyn was right. Mrs May had effective stopped the discussion. It now appears that the question can be put before the European Court whether we can or can't. With this new ruling the hypothetical question can now be asked "could we stop in if we changed our minds". The answer is important because a new Prime Minister, be it Joe Blogs from the Tories or Corbyn for Labour could change direction if they were allowed to. Brexit Ruling.

[chinatyke]

Better off by ourselves where we can turn the clock back to the dark ages and do as we are told.

Were we in the dark ages before the UK joined EEC on 1st January 1973? I notice that 1 year after joining the UK was on a 3 day week.

[plaques]

Yes, That's the Tory government for you. 1974 they pushed the prices and inflation up so much that the miners went on strike for more wages. In retaliation Ted Heath's lot declared a three day week. It cost them their majority in the next election. This time round they are attacking wages and prices by stealth and calling it austerity. History repeating itself? Time will tell.

[chinatyke]

Yes, That's the Tory government for you. 1974 they pushed the prices and inflation up so much that the miners went on strike for more wages. In retaliation Ted Heath's lot declared a three day week. It cost them their majority in the next election. This time round they are attacking wages and prices by stealth and calling it austerity. History repeating itself? Time will tell.

After joining the EEC, inflation and prices went up so much that the miners brought the UK to its knees. Isn't that a better political spin?