Category Archives: current affairs

current affairs, thoughts

Carry On Living

Over the last few days everyone has done their fair share of wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to the referendum result to leave the EU.
Whether the voters meant what they said or not; and whether we like it or not; that was the opinion of the British voters.
While I would prefer to remain in the EU, it is now time for us all to shut up and get on with life.
Why? Because we have no option.
All the possible routes for changing the decision are essentially closed. This is outlined in a very interesting Briefing Paper Brexit: What happens next? from the House of Commons Library (which is about as independent as you can get) issued on Friday 24 June.
Let’s look at some of the options, through the eyes of this Briefing Paper.
[Note that this is NOT legal opinion but my reading of the aforementioned Briefing Paper and a number of other legal pieces I’ve seen.]
Must the Government respect the vote to leave?

No, but politically it is highly unlikely that the Government would ignore the result.

Referring to a David Allen Green column in the Financial Times on 14 June:

What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable.

If any future Prime Minister ignores the result, basically they cook their goose. And they are all astute enough to know that.
What happens now in the EU and the UK?
As far as you and I are concerned, nothing in the immediate term.

The UK ‘deal’ agreed in February 2016 on the UK in the EU will not come into force.
Although the UK has voted to leave the EU, from 24 June until the point of departure from the EU the UK is still a member of the EU. Nothing about the UK’s EU membership will change initially.
… … …
The UK will continue to apply EU law and to participate in the making of EU law in Brussels. There is no need to give immediate notice of withdrawal under Article 50 TEU [Treaty on European Union] …
As David Cameron has said he will not lead the exit negotiations, there will now be a period of three or four months before a new prime minister will notify the European Council of its intention to withdraw. During this time the UK and the EU will be able to “take stock and work out who, and by reference to what strategy, the negotiations will be conducted”.

It is likely that parliament will need to set up a joint Lords & Commons select committee to scrutinise the withdrawal procedure. This is going to cost us as they will need large numbers of support staff, office space etc. — there is an estimated 80K pages of legislation which will need scrutinising.
Is Article 50 TEU the only route to leaving the EU?

The Article 50 TEU route is the legal way to leave the EU under EU and international treaty law …
… … …
The UK Government has ratified a whole series of EU Treaties, meaning that it is bound by the obligations under those treaties as a matter of international law. Repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and/or other EU-based domestic legislation would not remove those international law obligations.
One of the main principles of customary international law is that agreements are binding and must be performed in good faith … [this is] reaffirmed in article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which the UK is a party.

Of course we could just ignore the rules, break the treaty obligations and be in contempt of international law. Who knows what the consequences of such an approach would be, but you can be sure it would not be pretty.
What about the devolution angle?
Quoting Sionaidh Douglas-Scott of Oxford University the Briefing Paper suggests that although the UK Parliament may repeal the European Communities Act 1972, this would not bring an end to the domestic incorporation of EU law in the devolved nations.

It would still be necessary to amend the relevant parts of devolution legislation. But this would be no simple matter and could lead to a constitutional crisis. Although the UK Parliament may amend the devolution Acts, the UK government has stated that it will not normally legislate on a devolved matter without the consent of the devolved legislature. This requires a Legislative Consent Motion [in the devolved parliaments] However, the devolved legislatures might be reluctant to grant assent, especially as one feature of the ‘Vow’ made to the Scottish electorate was a commitment to entrench the Scottish Parliament’s powers … So the need to amend devolution legislation renders a UK EU exit constitutionally highly problematic.

And that says nothing about the peace agreements in Northern Ireland.
What if Parliament does not pass legislation to implement EU withdrawal?

Parliament could vote against the adoption of any legislation linked to withdrawal – an amendment to or repeal of the ECA, for example … but this would not prevent the UK’s exit from the EU if the UK Government had already notified the EU under Article 50 TEU. Article 50 stipulates withdrawal two years from formal notification, with or without a withdrawal agreement.

As I read it, and I’m sure I’ve seen this opinion in print somewhere, the decision to invoke Article 50 is with the government, not parliament. Once Article 50 is invoked then separation will happen automatically regardless of whether there is any agreement or not — no-one can stop this, but the timescale could be extended by consent of all 27 remaining EU member states. Parliament cannot legislate to prevent separation if Article 50 has been invoked. All they could do is, before Article 50 is invoked, instruct the government not to do so. The government could ignore them, of course, but that would [in my view] bring about a massive constitutional crisis; but then so could ignoring the referendum result.
Could Scotland stay in the EU without the rest of the UK?
Essentially, no.

Scotland is currently not a ‘state’ under international law capable of signing and ratifying international treaties. Nor does it have power over international relations, which are reserved to Westminster … under the Scotland Act 1998:
… … …
Scotland could not therefore be an EU Member State in its own right, or even sign an Association Agreement with the EU, however much either side wished for it.

But if Scotland became independent?
The answer, essentially, still seems to be, no. International law governs how treaties are continued if a signatory state divides. Reading the Briefing Paper these rules seem to mean Scotland would have to gain independence and then apply to join the EU.
[But this is complex and I refer you read the Briefing Paper in detail.]
A second independence referendum (in Scotland)?
Although Nicola Sturgeon considers the trigger of “significant and Material change in circumstances” in the SNP 2016 election manifesto has been fulfilled, she still doesn’t have the power to hold another referendum.

The Scotland Act 2016 did not give the Scottish Parliament law-making powers in relation to referendums, so UK consent would be required for another referendum.
Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum was called under an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to devolve the power to hold such a referendum for a limited period, ending on 31 December 2014.

Can France re-negotiate the Le Touquet treaty?

This bilateral treaty governs the ‘juxtaposed’ immigration controls for France and the UK.
… … …
France could break the Le Touquet treaty unilaterally (even if the UK did not leave the EU).
Article 23 of the Treaty of Le Touquet, establishing ‘juxtaposed’ immigration controls for France and the UK, [allows] either France or the UK [to] terminate the arrangements [unilaterally] …

What about the EU itself; what can it do?
As I understand it the EU can do little except get their ducks lined up and sit on their hands until Article 50 is invoked. They cannot force the UK to invoke Article 50 (whether sooner or later, and despite what they might like) unless or until it wishes to do so. And invoking Article 50 is the thing which triggers the formal exit negotiations. Whether the EU would be prepared to enter into informal negotiations prior to the UK invoking Article 50 is a moot point, but they seem to have said they will not do so — and why should they?
So what about this parliamentary petition to (retrospectively) change the referendum rules or force another vote?
That, my friend, is a side show; albeit a popular one. It isn’t going to happen, even if it does get debated in parliament. Parliament almost never indulges in retrospective legislation. And the government would need to find good material cause to politically justify running another referendum. Doing anything else would be political suicide — but then we’ve seen a fair amount of that already.
So what can we do?
Basically nothing. We’ve (collectively) told the politicians what we want them to do. They have to work out for themselves how to manage the fall-out — that’s what they’re paid to do.
All we can do is to get on with life and watch the fireworks. Keep an eye on your finances; don’t spend money you haven’t got; and be prepared to move money around — but then you do that anyway. Markets can go up as well as down; so can salaries; and pensions; and prices. Just stay watchful.
And we still need to watch what our “lords & masters” are doing and ensure they are held to account — especially now.
So, I’m sorry, guys & gals, we just have to get on with the mess we (collectively) have made for ourselves and live our lives as best we can.
In the words of the Irish comedian, the late Dave Allen, “May your god go with you”.

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

I want my country back

I want my country back
This is the constant refrain of the collection of spivs and barrow-boys who are hectoring us to vote to leave the EU.
And which of us wouldn’t agree?
I certainly would like my country back. But not the country of the “good old days” — formerly known as “these trying times” — as so well hammed up by AA Gill in last weekend’s Sunday Times [no link to the original as it’s paywalled, but the text has been posted on Facebook].
What I want is a country of sanity.
A country without gratuitous violence and sexual abuse.
A country where we all treat everyone as an equal …
… and other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
A country which is not run by self-serving, sleazy, megalomaniacs.
A country where there is a right to privacy, but also transparent & honest government …
… a right to free education up to and including university first degree level …
… a right to properly funded, excellent healthcare, free at the point of use, for all.
A society without corporate greed and unnecessary obsolescence.
A country which cares more for the environment than it does for corporate profit.
A country without a “me, me, me” “now, now, now” culture of instant gratification and ever mounting personal debt.
A country where sexuality, nudity and “soft drug” use are normalised, not marginalised and criminalised.
A country where (like Bhutan) Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product as the measure of success.
I don’t care about the golden days of the Hovis bread adverts, when all men wore hats and ties, beer was 2p a pint, and we all lived in hovels with a privvy at the bottom of the yard. I’m not asking for them to return. And I’m not asking for Utopia.
I’m quite content to take a modern society with modern conveniences. I just believe we have the balance completely wrong.
And it is this lack of balance which is basically screwing us.
Unfortunately we are not going to even think about this, let alone get anywhere near it, with the present set of political lizards, whether they’re in parliament & local government or whether they’re journalists, commentators or other media hangers-on. There are just too many entrenched attitudes and vested interests. Turkeys vote neither for Christmas nor Thanksgiving.
We aren’t going to get it either by voting to leave the EU or remain in the EU. In this sense the EU referendum is as pointless and meaningless as it is tedious and divisive.
No, the only way we are going to achieve this is by a complete paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that happens to the whole country, not just a few intelligent idiots like me. It has to be a vision of the majority. A vision which the majority can find a way to implement in our governance structures. A vision which we, the people, can make stick.
I don’t know how we do this. I don’t even know how we start to do this. I really don’t.
But I do know that this is what we desperately need.

current affairs, environment

Alternative Garden Bridge

As reported in the Guardian a few days ago, architects Allies & Morrison have come up with a much more affordable version of London’s proposed Garden Bridge — an ill-conceived, cabalistic vanity project if ever there was one. And because it is affordable, and thus won’t be burdened with huge debts or the demands of corporate sponsors, it can be a truly open public space. Basically they are proposing to reuse some of the space on Blackfriars Bridge — a resource which already exists. This sounds eminently feasible.


The Garden Bridge project should be killed — and no I don’t believe Mayor Sadiq Khan when he says it will cost more to cancel it than complete it. This alternative deserves to gain traction.
Read the full Guardian article and Allies & Morrison’s description.

current affairs

Brexit? Then What?

In the latest of a series of posts about the UK and the EU, Obiterj, over at the Law and Lawyers blog, takes a look at what has to happen politically (and legally) to implement a Brexit vote.
It isn’t pretty. Or easy. Or quick. There’s a lot that would have to be done, by both the UK and the EU, and it could be years before the UK could trigger the formal 2 year (or more) process to withdraw from the EU.
Read the full piece here.

current affairs, ramblings

I'm Sorry, They Haven't a Clue

A couple more snippets on the EU referendum.
Tom Peck in yesterday’s Independent highlights that British public wrong about nearly everything to do with the EU according to a recent Ipsos MORI poll.
So it should be no surprise that, according to today’s Independent, 55% of people intend to vote LEAVE despite that warnings about the economic impact of Brexit appear to be hitting home. According to the ORB survey 80% of people think leaving the EU would pose some risk, while 19 per cent think it would pose no risk at all. Nevertheless a majority of both groups are still prepared to take the risk.
Meanwhile my friend Katy in a blog post yesterday likens getting people to understand the actual facts (as opposed to that they think the facts are) in the referendum debate to trying to teach children how to pick up marks in exams even if they eventually get the answers wrong. Having tried both she has found much sadness.
Which just goes to prove what I was highlighting the other day: that even thinking people do not understand risk and consistently under-estimate risks.
Gawdelpus!

current affairs

Brexit on, and on, and on …

Another article I picked up yesterday was UK and the EU (10) — What if it is Brexit? on the Law and Lawyers blog. As you might divine it is number 10 in a series which tries to shine some interesting lights on the legal ramifications of the upcoming referendum.
Yesterday’s article points out (without saying it in as many words) that a LEAVE vote on 23 June would present an interesting constitutional crisis. In summary:

  • The present House of Commons has more MPs in favour of remaining in the EU than leaving it.
  • Constitutionally sovereignty rests with Parliament so the referendum result cannot be legally binding on Parliament.
  • But politically it would be very difficult for the government to ignore the referendum result.
  • What the referendum does not address is what would be the UK’s relationship with the EU when the UK leaves at the end of the (presumably 2 year) exit negotiations.
  • Ultimately, Parliament will have to legislate for whatever arrangement is negotiated. That legislative process is likely to be very complex and lengthy with the final legislation depending on the negotiated exit deal. And of course parliament may decline to pass the required legislation.
  • This could be even messier if there is a REMAIN majority in Scotland but not in England. That could re-fuel demands for Scotland independence.
  • The Prime Minister and most ministers have campaigned for REMAIN so how would they stand if the vote is for Brexit? Since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 it is not possible for the Prime Minister to simply ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. The next election will be in May 2020 unless a general election is called through one of the two procedures set out in the 2011 Act. There is no other mechanism unless parliament itself repeals (or amends) the 2011 Act.

Interesting times we live in!

current affairs, environment, ramblings

Zombie Trains

There was a very illuminating article by Simon Jenkins in yesterday’s Guardian under the banner

HS2: the zombie train that refuses to die


In it Jenkins writes the biography of the HS2 rail project — and how over the years it has been fiddled and fudged by governments and interested parties when there is basically no business case, or any other justification, for it.
Whether you agree with Jenkins or not, it doesn’t make very edifying reading.
My view has always been that HS2 is another classic example, like London’s proposed Garden Bridge, of an unjustified vanity project which has got completely out of hand and sucked in politicians who can’t now be seen to back down. Heathrow’s Third Runway isn’t too far behind either. These mega projects are seldom more than politicians “willy waving”.
They’re all projects which need to be killed off — FAST!
If we’ve got that amount of money to waste spend then it would be better spent on more useful infrastructure projects. Let’s start with a couple of nuclear power stations to reduce our dependence on imported coal and dirty oil with a reduction in CO2 emissions.
I despair of politicians, I really do. Doomed! We’re all doomed!

current affairs, ramblings, thoughts

Despair, or not?

I’m beginning to get despondent — no, let’s have this right, I’m now getting ever more deeply despondent — about the EU Referendum on 23 June.
I’m worried that the great British public will vote to LEAVE the EU. They certainly will if the current opinion polls are anything to go by as most seem to be showing LEAVE several points ahead with relatively few undecided voters. Typically the polls I’ve seen in the last week seem to be showing roughly REMAIN on 42% and LEAVE on 44%.
What deepened my worries is the state of mind of the “unthinking masses”. There’s a group on Facebook for the town where I grew up — a town now predominantly populated by people I can only best describe as “Essex chavs” (although that does do an injustice to many). Someone bravely put a poll on the Facebook group asking what people would vote. When I looked a few minutes ago the figures were REMAIN 28, LEAVE 158.
WHAT! Yes, that’s right, almost 6:1 in favour of LEAVE. I find that really scary because it implies that the LEAVE campaign’s fear-mongering, mostly on immigration, has got through to the minds of the less critical masses.
I fear that Joe Public is going to vote according to his tribal and xenophobic, Daily Mail, mindset — just as in many other things he (and she) will always vote with their wallet. Even many immigrants, and children of immigrants, are saying they’ll vote LEAVE because of immigration.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m OK with a LEAVE vote as long as it is based on some concrete foundations. However I know that Joe Public doesn’t work that way; he votes according to his fears and predilections, not because of good logic. Remember the old research which says that 5% of people can think and do; 5% of people cannot think; the other 90% can thing but just can’t be bothered — and that is partly because they have never been properly taught to do so.
It is going to take an awful lot of thinking citizens to overcome odds like that.
Part of the problem is that people cannot grasp that this whole thing is a big gamble; but a gamble where no-one knows what any of the odds are! This was summed up a couple of days ago by Martin Lewis of moneysavingexpert.com under the title How to vote in the EU referendum. His article is quite nicely balanced; Lewis points out the good and the bad with the EU. Here are a few key snippets:

It’s the biggest consumer decision any of us will ever make. It affects our economy, foreign policy, immigration policy, security and sovereignty. Our vote on whether the UK should leave the EU will reverberate through our lifetimes, and those of our children and grandchildren.
… … …
My mailbag’s been drowning with questions and concerns. The biggest being: “Please just tell us the facts, what’ll happen if we leave?” I’m sorry, but the most important thing to understand is: there are no facts about what happens next.
Anyone who tells you they KNOW what’ll happen if we leave the EU is a liar. Predicting exact numbers for economic, immigration or house price change is nonsense. What’s proposed is unprecedented. All the studies, models and hypotheses are based on assumptions — that’s guesstimate and hope.

Oh, and that applies equally to both sides of the debate! There are no facts; just guesses.
Lewis goes on to recommend that we “do some reading on useful independent sites that run through the issues” and suggests we start with The UK in a Changing Europe which is run by King’s College, London and pools balanced articles from all sides.
He then, quite rightly, points out …

… for most people this comes down to a risk assessment.
A vote for Brexit is unquestionably economically riskier than a vote to remain. Yet don’t automatically read risk as a bad thing. It simply means there’s more uncertainty …
Leaving the EU risks us being left on the sidelines …
Or we could in the long run become a nimble low-tax, low-regulation, tiger economy …
The likely truth is of course somewhere between the two. But most independent analysis suggests Brexit will be detrimental to the economy.
… … …
The volume of uncertainty means the only way to make the right decision is based on your political attitude to the EU, your gut instinct, and how risk-averse you are on each area that matters to you.

All I would say is please do this consciously, after carefully weighing the options, and don’t necessarily go just with your gut feelings (important though they are). In the words of Frank Zappa “a mind is like a parachute — it doesn’t work if it is not open“.
I happen to think that on balance leaving the EU would be the worse option — and heaven knows there’s so much about the EU I don’t like. But I could be wrong. We all could be wrong. As with all things there is no “RIGHT” answer.
And remember, again as Lewis comments, “the future is always a journey” but the path is crazy paving and you lay it yourself as you go along.
Good luck! We’re all going to need it whichever path we take.