The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Chindie]

Lloyd's syndicate XL Catlin are shifting a 100 jobs to Dublin, possibly to increase, to maintain EU access. They join Chubb and AIG announcing recent job shifts.

Reuters also have reported 10,000 jobs are initially expected to go in the financial services sector if there isn't access to the market.

[bickster]

Quote

As Cabinet divisions over Brexit threaten to tear Theresa May’s Government apart, focus is turning to the obscure legislation that governs how the UK would leave the single market.

Now experts have claimed that Ms May’s plans for a hard Brexit could be scuppered by a little-known legal clause.

The small print at the heart of the debate, Article 127, is the lesser-known cousin of Article 50. Whereas Article 50 spells out how a country leaves the European Union (EU), Article 127 relates to departing the single market.

The former has already been triggered, but the latter has not – and that is where the Prime Minister's problem could lie.

What is Article 127?

It is a clause of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement 1993 – the document that includes the rules governing the single market.

Article 127 explains the process for a country leaving the single market.

It says: “Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties. 

“Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.”

That’s it. But some experts say these 52 words could be enough to keep Britain in the single market - and even scupper Brexit entirely. 

How could that happen?

Britain has already triggered the Article 50 clause that sets the ball rolling on withdrawing from the European Union.

In March, Ms May wrote to Donald Tusk, the European Council President, saying: “I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Union.”

In doing so she began a two-year process that will see Britain leave the EU in March 2019.

However, some legal experts say this is not the same as leaving the EEA (the single market), and that a separate process is needed for this to happen. 

Under Article 127, members of the EEA must explicitly say they plan to leave the single market – which is legally separate, many lawyers believe, to leaving the EU.

Jo Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, told The Independent: “There is an argument that leaving the EU automatically triggers departure from the EAA. There’s another argument that actually it doesn’t, and you have to trigger your departure from the EEA separately. 

“If the first of those is right, then the Government doesn’t need the permission of Parliament because we already announced we’re leaving the EEA when we triggered Article 50.

“But if the second argument is right, there would need to be parliamentary authorisation either through the Repeal Bill or otherwise.”

Could Article 127 stop a hard Brexit?

Potentially, yes. Late last year, pro-EU campaigners launched a legal bid to force the Government to consult Parliament before triggering Article 127.

High Court judges blocked that challenge because, they said, it was too early; the process of the UK leaving the single market had barely begun. However, the case is likely to be relaunched further down the line.

Depending on how the courts rule, the Government could be forced to give Parliament a vote on whether the UK should leave the single market. Under the “12 months’ notice” part of Article 127, that would mean a vote would need to be held by next March, if Britain is to leave the single market at the same time as it leaves the EU.

In that scenario, it is far from certain that Ms May would be able to get Parliament to back her plans.

While Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in theory supports leaving the EEA, its commitment to this is far from clear and several shadow ministers have already touted the possibility that the UK could remain in the EEA and customs union after Brexit.

For example, Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, recently said his party was “flexible” about the option of “negotiating a new single market relationship”. 

That raises the possibility that, if the EU is willing to make concessions on freedom of movement, Labour could shift its position and end up backing EEA membership.

In that case, only six pro-EU Tory MPs would need to rebel in order for the Government to be defeated.

Mr Maugham said he believed MPs would be likely to support a proposal to “keep all options open” and “keep single market membership on the table for a transitional period and then adopt a wait-and-see approach for after a transitional period” – in other words, keep Britain in the single market until further notice.

Former Government insiders also believe Article 127 could prove critical and might even halt Brexit entirely if ministers are forced to give Parliament a vote on single market membership.

According to The Mirror, James Chapman, the former Chief of Staff to Brexit Secretary David Davis’, yesterday told an event at the Liberal Democrats’ annual conference: “Is there a majority in the House of Commons, let alone [the Lords] to leave the single market? No there’s not.

“So the Government won’t be able to get that through Parliament and at that point Brexit will collapse.

“Because the British people will say ‘we’ll have to pay more to stay in the single market and we won’t be able to control freedom of movement. So what is the effing point of doing this?’”

What does the Government say?

Ministers say Article 127 is irrelevant because when Britain stops being an EU member, it will automatically leave the single market. 

In February, a Number 10 spokesperson said: "The UK is party to the EEA agreement only in its capacity as an EU member state. Once the UK leaves the EU, the EEA agreement will automatically cease to apply to the UK.”

However, the Government’s position appears to have shifted slightly. Earlier this month, David Davis hinted that ministers might try to trigger Article 127 to avoid any doubt about Britain’s legal position in relation to the EEA.

He told MPs: “We are considering what steps, if any, we might need to take to formally confirm our withdrawal from the EEA agreement, as a matter of international law.”

And, let’s not forget, Government lawyers don’t have the best track record on Brexit. They previously claimed that Parliament did not need to be given a say on triggering Article 50 – an argument that was dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter included an explicit – and separate - reference to the UK’s intention to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). That could be interpreted as an implicit recognition that leaving the EU’s institutions requires a separate notification – one that might also apply to the EEA.

What will happen now?

The Government may continue to argue that Article 127 is irrelevant, or it may try to trigger the clause without the approval of Parliament. Clauses in the EU Withdrawal Bill, which is currently before Parliament, would grant ministers that power.

However, MPs are prepared for this.

Labour backbencher Heidi Alexander has already tabled an amendment to the bill that says: “No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.”

If this or any similar amendment is passed, ministers would be forced to call a vote of Parliament on triggering Article 127 – like they were with Article 50.

As things stand, the battle seems set to end up in the courts. If ministers attempt to ignore Article 127 or to trigger it without a parliamentary vote, Remain campaigners are almost certain to re-launch their legal challenge.

Should this happen, Theresa May would face the prospect of her most significant parliamentary defeat yet and, when it comes to determining Britain’s future relationship with Europe, one that could have major ramifications for decades to come

11

Indie

Hands up if you think the government knew about article 127?

[darrenm]

Inb4 brexiters say 'we'll just tear up the agreement, the ECJ has no jurisdiction after brexit'

[tonyh29]

58 minutes ago, bickster said:

Indie

Hands up if you think the government knew about article 127?

 the article you quoted states " Interestingly, Theresa May’s Article 50 letter included an explicit – and separate - reference to the UK’s intention to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). That could be interpreted as an implicit recognition that leaving the EU’s institutions requires a separate notification – one that might also apply to the EEA."

 

So , I'm sorta veering towards

 

[Chindie]

Tomorrow should be fun.

[snowychap]

Speech by Michel Barnier in front of the Committees of Foreign Affairs and the Committees of European Affairs of the Italian Parliament

Quote

Rome, 21 September 2017

Presidents,

Members of Parliament,

I am happy to be here to give you an update on the ongoing negotiations.

At midnight on 29 March 2019, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union and will become a third country. This is the UK's sovereign decision. It must be respected.

The question facing us over the coming months is serious, but simple: will the United Kingdom leave in an orderly fashion with an agreement, or not?

From our side, I repeat once again that an agreement is the best outcome. It is in our common interest.

But if we want a deal, time is of the essence. The Treaty on European Union foresees a period of two years to negotiate withdrawal.

• 6 months have gone by since Theresa May's letter on 29 March 2017.
• 6 months will be necessary to allow for ratification before 29 March 2019.

There is therefore only one year left:

• To swiftly reach an agreement on the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal and to provide certainty where Brexit has created uncertainty: for citizens, for beneficiaries of EU programmes, for the new borders, particularly in Ireland.

• To subsequently define the length and precise conditions of a short transition period, if the British government requests one.

• To begin scoping our future relationship, in parallel to the finalisation of the withdrawal agreement.

The sooner we make real "sufficient progress" on the conditions of the UK's withdrawal, the sooner we can begin discussing our future partnership.

This was the approach set out unanimously by the European Council on 29 April in its guidelines. Above all, this approach is an essential condition for the success of these negotiations.

• Putting things in the right order is the best way to deal with the uncertainty created by Brexit, and the best way to create the necessary trust between us for our ambitious future relationship.

• If we didn't do this, and allowed the uncertainty to continue, and pushed these difficult subjects to the end of the negotiations, then we would run the risk of failure in the absence of trust between us.

***

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are a few days away from the fourth round of negotiations. I am asking myself questions.

I'm wondering why – beyond the progress we've made on certain points – there is still today major uncertainty on each of the key issues of the first phase.

To make progress, we are waiting for clear commitments from the UK on these precise issues.

We will listen attentively and constructively to Theresa May's important speech tomorrow in Florence.

1/ On citizens' rights, our priority in this negotiation:

• The issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom has not been solved.

• It is absolutely necessary that all these citizens, hundreds of thousands of whom are Italian citizens living and working in the United Kingdom, can continue to live as they did before, with the same rights and safeguards.

• This is a human and social question, which the European Parliament and its president, Antonio Tajani, are vigilantly watching, and rightly so.

• Citizens should be able to enforce their rights directly from the withdrawal agreement. This would prevent any possible dilution of these rights, if the rules implementing them in the UK were to change.

• In the same way, we want these rights to be valid in national courts and that national courts have the possibility – or even the obligation – to refer questions related to the interpretation of rights deriving from European law to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice would remain the ultimate guarantor of the agreement.

• This is for a simple reason: rights need to be effectively guaranteed.

• Our citizens have real concerns today – which we share – when the Home Office sends deportation letters or appears to defy High Court orders, as we read in the press.

• Our position on this point has been clear since the beginning. We want to provide the strongest safeguards for the rights of citizens on both sides of the Channel. We are waiting for the United Kingdom to express the same wish.

2/ On the financial settlement:

• All that is necessary in this negotiation is that everyone honours the commitments that they have made to each other. To settle the accounts. No more, no less.

• To settle the accounts in an objective manner, on the basis of all commitments made at 28.

• We want to provide – and we must provide – certainty for project managers working in Europe, such as in Italy and its regions, and in other continents, such as Africa, on the basis of the commitment of the 28.

• But beyond money, this is a question of trust between the 27 and the United Kingdom, based on the respect of one's signature. And everyone knows that we will need this trust to create a solid relationship in the future.

3/ Finally, on Ireland, and the Border in particular, we must act responsibly to respect both the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and the integrity of the Single Market. We are advancing, but there is still more political work to be done.

As I was saying, I am asking myself questions. These questions, as far as I see it, should not be controversial because this is about protecting our citizens, our businesses, our partners, and the credibility of our promises.

***

Ladies and gentlemen,

Once we have clarity on these points, we should also define the precise conditions for a possible transition period, if the British government requests one.

This period would begin on 30 March 2019, when the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European institutions, and therefore no longer takes part in the decision-making process.

An important point: this short transition period will be part of the Article 50 withdrawal agreement.

Without a withdrawal agreement, there is no transition. This is a point of law.

I would like to be very clear: if we are to extend for a limited period the acquis of the EU, with all its benefits, then logically "this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply" – as recalled in the mandate I received from the European Council, under the authority of President Donald Tusk.

I am convinced that a rapid agreement on the conditions of the UK's orderly withdrawal, and a transition period, is possible.

For that to happen, we would like the United Kingdom to put on the table, as soon as next week, proposals to overcome the barriers.

To quote Machiavel: "Dove c'è una grande volontà, non possono esserci grandi difficoltà."[1].

For all the reasons I have just explained, I repeat that an agreement on the orderly withdrawal is a precondition for any constructive and trustworthy discussion on our future relationship with the United Kingdom.

We want this future relationship!

...

We will obviously continue to trade with the United Kingdom.

The future trade deal with the United Kingdom will be particular, as it will be less about building convergence, and more about controlling future divergence. This is key to establishing fair competition.

Naturally, if the United Kingdom wanted to go further than the type of free trade agreement we have just signed with Canada, there are other models on the table.

For example, Norway and Iceland have chosen to be in the Single Market, to accept the rules, and to contribute financially to cohesion policy.

But one thing is sure: it is not – and will not – be possible for a third country to have the same benefits as the Norwegian model but the limited obligations of the Canadian model.

...more on link

From above, as highlighted by David Allen Green:

Quote

Our citizens have real concerns today – which we share – when the Home Office sends deportation letters or appears to defy High Court orders, as we read in the press.

 

[Chindie]

That speech, which is very calm and measured and logical, should concern everyone. There's a number of key points in it, not least of which is a clear reference to Amber Rudd's ludicrous actions that basically suggests the EU has no faith in our ability to act in good faith with its citizens, but also the repetition, for the nth time, that the EU is not going to give is the magic deal the less lunatic fringe of Brexiteer wants - the moronic cake and eaten it one, all the benefits of the market and nothing else. That's been obvious from the beginning, of course, but doesn't seem to sink in.

May's speech tomorrow will be interesting. What she says is important. The word is she is going to offer 20bn for transitional access. What that actually means (the divorce bill? On top of the bill?) is important. But whatever else she says will highlight just how far away we are from a deal. Why she's doing it in Florence is anyones guess, it probably has meaning (an old giant brung low?) but also seems dismissive of the EU - why not do it there in front of the people she needs to work with?

Even more worryingly, Barnier is said to be expected to respond in 15 minutes. That isn't likely to be a good thing.

As said, it'll be interesting tomorrow. We live in the proverbial interesting times.

[tonyh29]

florence scene of the bonfire of the vanities ... maybe she's going to go full Savonarola and burn a few objectionable manuscripts 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

16 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

florence scene of the bonfire of the vanities ... maybe she's going to go full Savonarola and burn a few objectionable manuscripts 

I suggest it's more likely to be a reference to the Magic Roundabout.  

Dougal is out for a jog at the moment.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

That speech, which is very calm and measured and logical, should concern everyone. There's a number of key points in it, not least of which is a clear reference to Amber Rudd's ludicrous actions that basically suggests the EU has no faith in our ability to act in good faith with its citizens, but also the repetition, for the nth time, that the EU is not going to give is the magic deal the less lunatic fringe of Brexiteer wants - the moronic cake and eaten it one, all the benefits of the market and nothing else. That's been obvious from the beginning, of course, but doesn't seem to sink in.

May's speech tomorrow will be interesting. What she says is important. The word is she is going to offer 20bn for transitional access. What that actually means (the divorce bill? On top of the bill?) is important. But whatever else she says will highlight just how far away we are from a deal. Why she's doing it in Florence is anyones guess, it probably has meaning (an old giant brung low?) but also seems dismissive of the EU - why not do it there in front of the people she needs to work with?

Even more worryingly, Barnier is said to be expected to respond in 15 minutes. That isn't likely to be a good thing.

As said, it'll be interesting tomorrow. We live in the proverbial interesting times.

Machiavellian some would say

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Machiavellian some would say

That was the Radio 4 take on it.

Except they mentioned the 'better to be feared than loved' quote, then added Theresa May would settle for either as right now she's largely ignored.

[snowychap]

Aargh, the bloody 'poker' analogy has reared its head again (Norman Smith on the Beeb just).

[Chindie]

Was it not for the fact that ultimately it will effect the entire country for the worse, the comments today on the speech would be hilarious. They pretty much unanimously are saying this speech is a complete waste of time.

Which barring miracles, it is.

[Chindie]

19 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Aargh, the bloody 'poker' analogy has reared its head again (Norman Smith on the Beeb just).

No idea what you're talking about, it's just like poker, except everyone knows what each orders hands are and what the deck contains, and you can't bluff, and nobody wins the game unless everyone wins, and you can't bet  only deal... And it doesn't use cards.

[snowychap]

May makes generous offer to remain in reality for further two years

Quote

THE prime minister has offered to abide by the laws of reality for a further two years while details of the wonderful fantasyland awaiting Britain are negotiated. 

The move is a significant change to previous policy, which had Britain departing from the real world completely in 2019 for a fabulous imaginary realm of prosperity.

 

In a speech in Florence, May said: “The people of Britain have chosen to live in a magical land where golden apples grow on every tree and it rains champagne, and live in that land we shall.

“But not all of our sugar-spun castles are quite completed yet and the ability to soar in the air free as a bird is still in beta-testing, so we have told reality if we remain part of it until 2021 we will continue to play by its rules.

“In return I have asked the real world to be creative and meet Britons halfway in their desire to turn anything they touch into gold, which they must be granted because they voted for it last year.”

May reiterated that in the long-term Britain will still exit the physical world entirely to exist eternally in the faerie realms, while still taking anything it wants from reality whenever it wants it.

But voter Margaret Gerving said: “She promised no compromises. She’s a bloody traitor.”

[Chindie]

Someone's let Farage out of his box again.

Surely it's time for hell to claim him by now and put us all out of the misery of seeing his deformed runt pug face gurning over a pint for another minute?

[tonyh29]

37 minutes ago, snowychap said:

and it rains champagne

surely we wouldn't want any of that foreign muck ?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

58 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

surely we wouldn't want any of that foreign muck ?

Invented in England I think ? (The fizzy part anyway)

[Demitri_C]

I still see no signs of how we are better off once we leave? My biggest fear was leaving these clown politicians in charge of taking us out and that includes labour and the realisation is becoming true day by day.

Its going to be absolute chaos once this all goes through I think,  

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

surely we wouldn't want any of that foreign muck ?

Marco Pierre White does not like this.