Interesting Links for 17-01-2019

[andrewducker]

Young Trans Children Know Who They Are

(tags: lgbt transgender children )

Jeremy Corbyn snubs Theresa May offer to work together on Brexit unless PM rules out no-deal

Of course, no detail on how to rule out No Deal when it's what happens automatically if nothing else is agreed...
(tags: UK europe labour )

A majority of Americans support raising the top tax rate to 70 percent

(tags: usa tax )

Hundreds of homeless people fined and imprisoned in England and Wales

(tags: England homelessness OhForFucksSake )

The BBC's article on the Gillette advert is *terrible*

(tags: BBC journalism twitter OhForFucksSake )

The Scottish government isn't funding autism support which actively saves money

(tags: NHS autism scotland OhForFucksSake )

Isle Of Man Is Now The First Place In The British Isles To Decriminalise Abortion

(tags: abortion GoodNews )

How Do People Communicate Before Death?

(tags: death language viaSwampers )

Hitachi scraps £16bn nuclear power station in Wales

(tags: nuclearpower uk Wales doom )

A question of interest: Is UK household debt unsustainable?

(tags: UK debt economics )

This is an excellent summary of the current Brexit situation and our options

(tags: UK europe )

Comments

[drplokta]

The way to rule out no deal is to pass legislation requiring the government to revoke the Article 50 notification on 28 March (or the day before Brexit day if the deadline is extended) if no deal has been agreed by that time.

[andrewducker]

Or accept the WA on that day 😉

[drplokta]

That would simply be accepting the withdrawal agreement, which has already been comprehensively defeated in Parliament.

[andrewducker]

I suspect that revoking article 50 would also be comprehensively defeated in parliament.

[danieldwilliam]

It is not clear that Parliament needs to give its consent to revocing Article 50.

That might still be within the Crown perogative.

[drplokta]

A conditional revocation on the day before Brexit if no deal has been agreed, with Labour and Tories both whipping in favour, would probably pass.

[andrewducker]

And persuading both leaderships to whip in favour of that?

(doable on March 27th, I suspect)

[drplokta]

Corbyn should have no problem with it, since it is merely the logical conclusion of his demand that no deal be ruled out. If it gets to the day before Brexit day with no deal agreed, then pulling the notification is the only way to prevent no deal. May’s opposition is of course the current disagreement.

[danieldwilliam]

Aye - it is the logical conclusion of what he's asked for. Cetainly absent anything else happening.


Unilaterally revoking the Article 50 notification on Brexit Day -1 looks like the only way within the UK's control that guarantees no EU exit with No Deal.

But I think there some processes between now and then - such as returning to negotiations having decided to solve the on-going honouring of the Good Friday Agreement by staying in the Single Market. Which is more likely if Corbyn can extract a binding promise from the Government that there will be no No Deal as this forces Brexiteers to conceed that the only way they get Brexit is if they can get a deal through Parliament and the Brexiteers ought to realise that May's harder line deal would have to softened by becoming a deal that shapes the UK for membership of the EEA. Brexiteers wouldn't like that but the slippery careerist ones like Johnson might be persuaded to go for it, especially if it destroys May in the process.

I wish I believed that Corbyn fully understood this. At best I think he is trying to worry at the Tory Party by getting the various factions to fray. At worst I think he's not really through this through or has some Lexit scheme of his own.

[drplokta]

There’s no possibility of concluding negotiations to stay in the single market before Brexit day, and so even if that becomes our intention, the backstop is still required in case the negotiations fail. It changes the non-binding political declaration, but not the withdrawal agreement.

[danieldwilliam]

I think in practice the two documents are too heavily linked not to be treated as one.

The Irish border backstop is only contentious is you intend not to be in the Single Market. if you intend to be in the Single Market you have already agreed that the UK will not be making bilateral trade agreeement and that it is easy for Northern Ireland to be in the same market as both Ireland (GFA requirement) and Great Britain (DUP requirement).

One is essentailly bringing forward the moment when Hard Brexiteers have lost and know they have lost.

[danieldwilliam]

I do not think you can do a conditional revocation.

Firstly, my understanding of the ruling in the Scottish Case was that the UK could unilaterally revoke its Article 50 if it was a sincere and good faith revocation and not an attempt to do an end run around the need for uninamity for an Article 50 extension. I'm not sure that putting in conditions that touched on the EU would pass that test.

Secondly, the unilateral revocation completely revokes the Article 50 (or it has no effect - see above). Therefore, in terms of UK constitutional proceedure we are probably back to the position pre EU referendum. I am not sure it would be possible to put in place any conditions for UK counter-parties that were enforceable.

"I will vote to revoke Article 50 so we can renegotiate the Irish Border with the EU and we will trigger it again in a year" probably falls foul of the good faith requirements under the Scottish Case.

"I will vote to revoke Article 50 if you promise X, Y and Z (a Section 30 Consent for a Scottish Independence Referendum for example)" is difficult to enforce because Article 50 is revoked and would need an Act of Parliament to re-invoke (per the Miller Case).

In the second case you'd be entirely relying on the good faith of the Prime Minister of the day and that they remained Prime Minister until the point of delivery on their side of the bargain.

[drplokta]

The only condition would be that we’d got to the day before Brexit day without agreeing a deal or an extension. The revocation under those circumstances would be unequivocal and unconditional, as required — we would then be staying in the EU, not trying to buy time.

[danieldwilliam]

I'm thinking more of an attempt to write that in to UK law during the week of the 21st January. Which requires having the fight with Brexiteers now.

And also turns on whether one thinks being able to leave without a deal strengthens our negotiating position in any meaningful way. I tend to think that it doesn't but I understand that others think it does.

[danieldwilliam]

The Scottish Case is important here.

An implication of a rule that is actually binding on the UK Government that it avoid a No Deal Brexit is that can not leave the EU without a deal. (I.e a rule that is in the necessary form to compel HMG whether that is House of Commons Standing Orders or a whole new Act of Parliament0

What flows from that in the event of no deal being ratified by the 29th of March is that one of following is true

a) the UK government must, on the 29th March, unilaterally revoke Article 50 (which it has a right to do, perhaps, depending on your reading the of the UK constitution and, inter alia, the Gina Miller Case

b) the Withdrawal Act has been in part repeal, implicitely or explicitely

c) the UK Government have no right to exit the EU on the 29th March, and can't do so, and therefore revokation of Article 50 is implied and operates by process of law

So I don't think Corbyn has to do much heavy lifting about how to take No Deal of the Table. It is possible that the Government (rather than Parliament) has the right to unilaterally revoke Article 50. It can arrange to bind itself.

Or the UK Parliament could pass the EU Withdrawal (Amendment) (Article 50 Revocation) Act 2019

S1 The United Kingdom shall not leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement that has been ratified by the House of Commons

S2 (i) If, by, 9pm on the day of withdrawal the UK Parliament has not ratified a Withdrawal Agreement the relevant government minister is required to issue proper notices revoking Article 50

(ii) if the notices are not delivered in proper form, or if no notices are in fact delivered, the reaching of 9pm on the day of withdrawal will still be considered a constitutionally valid revocation of Article 50.

Corbyn, himself, hasn't actually said that and he may not have thought it through but it's pretty easy to do.

What is trickier is ensuring that the UK doesn't leave without a deal in a way that still means we are definately leaving.

[andrewducker]

I agree that they could bind themselves to avoid No Deal if they wanted to.

But that means passing legislation to say "If we get to 5 minutes to midnight on Brexit Day-1 then X."

Where X is either "Enact Withdrawal Agreement" or "Revoke Article 50"

So that means that the parliament needs to agree which of those two choices it will bind itself to. The one which just got the largest single government defeat in history, or the one which neither party is willing to admit is an option.

If Corbyn is suggesting either of these, then great. But he needs to say what he is suggesting, not just "I don't like this option, make the bad thing go away."

[danieldwilliam]

They probably ought to couch the legislation in terms of (If by T-t hours, WA has not been agreed than X) but legislation that said "the UK may not leave the EU with a deal" would be valid legislation. It would end up being litigated to buggery and back, probably more than once.

Probably after Brexit Day.

However what passes for statesmanship this century is to pass ill-thought out legislation that triggers litigation and a constitutional crisis. There may be a majority in the House for the No No Deal But No Alternative Act.

[danieldwilliam]

Corbyn also has some incentive to not propose anything helpful but merely to get in the way whilst the Tories implode and explode and assplode every which way.

Which doesn't make him a statesman or even a decent candidate for PM, but no greater love hath a man than that he lay down his ambition for his party.

[danieldwilliam]

I am still of the view that Corbyn couldn't find his arse with both hands tied behind his back (and am awaiting research funding to explore this vital question by establishing a base line).

[andrewducker]

He does.

But I'd like to not be living in an apocalyptic disaster zone come April, and therefore would like him to take that into account when making his decisions.

[danieldwilliam]

Well me also, me also, but, we did lose and we should just get over it.

[andrewducker]

This is interesting, from a legal expert
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1085900537231523841?s=09

[danieldwilliam]

Mostly I agree with that but there is an option 1B. In order to rule out a No Deal Brexit there must either be 1) a Deal or 2) a revocation of Article 50. That Deal doesn't have to be the one that May negotiated, it doesn't have to be one that leaves the confidence and supply agreeement in place, it doesn't have to be one that leaves the Tory Party in existence.

If one is to ascribe some street smarts to Corbyn it might be that his hope is to force May in to a positon where she is stuck between No Brexit and a Deal that will pass the Commons - such as Norway and hopefully destroy the Tory Party in the process.

In order for that to happen he needs to not draw attention to his end game. Hence his silence on what would be the implicit policy of the Labour Party - Single Market or Remain.

Personally I do not ascribe that level of cunning or understanding to Corbyn. I think he is mostly bumbling around, blowing raspberries at the government and trying not to split his own voting base by actually doing anything. But that doesn't stop him lighting by accident on an outcome that I like.

[drplokta]

There’s one way to ensure that the UK definitely leaves, but doesn’t leave without a deal. But that way was voted down by 230 votes two days ago. There’s no other way to do it.

[cmcmck]

They do!

I'd figured it out by the time I was five.