So much for the “row of the summer”.

As widely predicted yesterday’s meeting between the EU Chief Art. 50 negotiator Michel Barnier and the UK’s David Davis was largely symbolic.

They had lunch and agreed the negotiating programme that covers the next 4 months that the EU had set out.

David Davis’s much vaunted “row of the summer” over whether exit talks and trade talks were going to be held in parallel or sequentially didn’t materialise, they will happen sequentially as the EU proposed.

We now have to wait until the 17th July for the first substantive round of UK/EU negotiations.

In the meanwhile The People’s Challenge will finish its own roadmap of what is likely between now and 00:00 30th March 2019.

We have been working on identifying the legal, judicial, and political events and questions which will shape the coming months as the UK and the EU seek to unravel 44 years of mutual agreements.

Once we know what is in the Queen’s Speech and, what parliament approves, we will publish this roadmap.

 

 

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

And so the dance begins

So, against a background of increasingly confused and confusing stories coming from Westminster, these Brexit “negotiations” are about to “start”.

I use quotes because the agenda for Monday is very reminiscent of something which might be referred to as “flannel”. Lots of talking under vague terms like “working groups” and “Meeting of coordinators”. I get that the dog has to see the rabbit, but still there doesn’t appear to be a single session focused on any particular issue.

This is disappointing, but of course not surprising. Unlike the EU (see here and here for the EU’s position papers) the Govt has not presented its position or policy to Parliament (or anyone else for that matter). It would appear the Govt doesn’t know which way is up following Theresa May’s monumental cock-up in the election.

Currently the only person in the UK who (possibly) knows what will be going on in Brussels is the PM. Parliament has not been presented with the Govt plans for the negotiations, so it’s no longer “no running commentary”, it’s “we’re gonna go and do whatever”.

Again, “no running commentary” is not surprising. It is in the best interest of the PM that the humiliation the Govt is likely to suffer at the negotiating table remains a private one.

If only it wasn’t just Michel Barnier who had committed to open and transparent negotiations…

 

Posted in Article 50 negotiations, Brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

MPs say “Drop hard Brexit plans” – this is when the Three Knights Opinion really counts

It’s been 5 months since the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the People’s Challenge – confirming that Brexit was a Parliamentary and not a Royal Prerogative decision. It’s worth noting that this decision was made by a UK court, composed of UK judges, according to UK law.

Following that, the People’s Challenge commissioned the “Three Knights Opinion“. This provided convincing and authoritative evidence that the UK’s Parliament has the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, once the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations is known, to make the decision about which of all the possible options is in the best interest of the UK and its people.

The necessity for this decision, one that obviously has to be made independent of party political interests, has been thrown into sharp relief by the outcome of this general election (June 2017) called by an autocratic and out-of-touch Prime Minister.

Former Tory cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell, said in today’s Guardian:

“At the beginning of the general election campaign, Theresa May said she was seeking a mandate to negotiate her sort of Brexit; the result denies her that mandate.”

He added: “The prime minister’s version of Brexit was set out in the Conservative election manifesto; it said that sovereignty was a red line, and concluded that Britain must withdraw from both the single market and the customs union. In doing so, it threatened our economic interests, and funding for our public services.”

“At a time when many families have seen no improvement in their living standards for more than a decade, and public services are grappling with rising demand and squeezed budgets, voters concluded that these priorities were simply perverse and refused to endorse them.”

“That will require parliamentarians to maintain an open mind; they will need to question the negotiating mandate developed by ministers and they will need to make it clear to ministers that they cannot take support for granted at the end of the negotiating process.“

“Most importantly, despite anything the prime minister may say, it is essential that parliament maintains for itself the option of voting for Britain to remain a member of the EU if it becomes clear that this is the best way to secure Britain’s national interest.”

Source: ‘Drop hard Brexit plans’, leading Tory and Labour MPs tell May | Politics | The Guardian

Posted in Brexit, GE2017, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Titanic success – the UK has just hit the iceberg, when will the Captain notice?

Back at the beginning of November 2016 Boris Johnson provoked hilarity when he said,  “Brexit will be a Titanic success”.

Apparently he didn’t understand the irony and idiocy of that remark.

I wonder whether he has since reflected on what happened to the Titanic?

He should have done, as the Brexit Titanic he referred to has finally struck the iceberg.

Theresa May, in calling for a bigger and safer majority (remember what they said about the Titanic!), hit the iceberg – an iceberg which should have been quite visible to someone pursuing a prudent course. Instead she careered along far too fast in search of political gain.

Now, the big question: is it just the Brexit Titanic that’s going to sink, or is it the whole country?

Posted in Brexit, GE2017, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The buck stops here – unless you are Theresa May

Just how does this happen?

I take responsibility for my part in this election campaign, which was the oversight of our policy programme. In particular, I regret the decision not to include in the manifesto a ceiling as well as a floor in our proposal to help meet the increasing cost of social care…….

I chose not to rebut these reports as they were published, as to have done so would have been a distraction for the campaign. But I take responsibility for the content of the whole manifesto…….

Quotes taken from The Guardian

An unelected advisor to the Prime Minister has oversight of the Prime Minister’s policy programme and was, according to him anyway, responsible for the whole of Theresa May’s manifesto.

So it isn’t just the executive arm of the UK’s Democracy that is making a power grab to side-line the UK’s Sovereign Parliament, it is the unelected advisors to Theresa May that are doing this.

Of course, I don’t seriously believe that for one moment. Theresa May must have signed off on this. As a person of the highest standards of ethics and probity she must have done?

So apart from her former confidant’s wish to puff up his CV, this can’t have any substance.

Harry S Truman had a notice on his desk “The buck stops here”, I wonder whether Theresa May has a similar notice on her desk?

Harry S Truman - The Buck Stops Here

 

Posted in GE2017, Political Integrity | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Theresa May snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

Theresa May called for unity, unity behind a project she defined. It was not a project defined either by the referendum or by Parliament. According to some it was not even defined by the government.

She was determined only to allow consideration of options that appeased the UKIP-wing of her party and the right-wing press, rather than to pursue the outcome that is in the best interests of the UK and its people.

In order to support this unity and backing of her views she called a “snap” election, despite having said on many occasions she wouldn’t.

She pushed the legislation for a General Election through the Commons with virtually no opposition. She thought she had not only the Commons but the country eating out of her hand.

The polls backed this up, not only were the Tories ahead in the polls but Theresa May’s own popularity ratings seemed to put her in an unassailable position.

It is a fact of life that arrogance often breeds contempt and the arrogance of the Theresa May junta quickly turned into contempt.

Personal attacks on opposition politicians, arrogantly adding in unpopular measures to the manifesto aimed at some of her most loyal supporters, trying to deny that she had made u-turns in her position.

The people of the UK have delivered their response, given Theresa May her comeuppance.

Instead of a landslide majority rivalling that of Tony Blair in 1997 or Margaret Thatcher in 1983 she has managed to turn an adequate parliamentary majority into something less.

This has not been achieved solely by her own efforts.

The Labour party produced a manifesto that had considerable appeal on the traditional General Election issues, health, education, care of the elderly and less able. Jeremy Corbyn engaged with and inspired voters.

At the same time the “strong and stable” campaign led by Theresa May collapsed into a “weak and wooden” campaign.

All the while there were thousands of people working, largely unpaid and unacknowledged, to bring about a change in the political scene in the UK. Some did so with great fanfare, almost all went about it quietly and seriously without seeking acknowledgment or praise.

We know that Theresa May’s arrogant gambit has not succeeded, not only not succeeded but has actually failed in a quite unprecedented manner. Theresa May has literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

However, whatever government is formed in the next few days we need to be aware of one indisputable fact: both the Labour party and the Tories are committed to taking the UK out of the EU based on the populist mantra the “the people have spoken”.

The only difference between them is that one says “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal” and the other says “Any Deal is better than No Deal”.

Neither has committed to pursuing a course of action solely based on “What is in the best interest of the UK”. Regardless of what either party says the Brexit “elephant in the room” has to be addressed.

In all things we should not be looking for the least worst option for the UK, we should, we must be looking for and demanding the best of all possible options for the UK.

Not doing so betrays our heritage, those things that people have struggled, fought and died for.

We clipped the wings of an authoritarian government in the courts, the electorate has now reigned in the government with this election result.

We must build on these successes and ensure that the views of all are taken into account and all the options are explored when Parliament decides the future course for the UK.

That is our legacy and our obligation – to seek “What is in the best interest of the UK”.

Posted in What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Resetting the debate

Probably the most important thing we need to discuss is how we “reset the debate”, which we will certainly have to do following 8th June.

Thus far we haven’t managed to do this.

I pulled together the People’s Challenge to the Government, not to oppose Brexit, but because of the risk to the democratic process, to our parliamentary sovereignty, posed by an autocratic government propped up by a populist mantra of “the people have spoken”.

That risk has not diminished: by the time we get to 9th June that risk will have increased.

Whatever happens on the 8th, the two largest parties will be working to take the UK out of the EU based on the populist mantra of the “people have spoken”.

The only difference between them is “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal” and “Any Deal is better than No Deal”. Neither party is promising to make its decision based on what is in the best interests of the UK and its people, neither party is promising to allow parliament to make a decision based on all the available options.

The resetting of the debate is not just about what sort of Europe (EU) we want to be part of, it is about what sort of country (UK) we want to be citizens of. Do we want to be citizens of a country that penalises the elderly, ignores the young, the disadvantaged, the minorities… or do we want to be citizens of a country that is open, inclusive, principled and caring?

Those of us who went to court, backed by thousands of supporters, clipped the wings of an autocratic, dictatorial government.

We have not yet empowered our parliamentarians with the sense that they can challenge the populist dictatorship embodied by the current government.

That is an issue that we not only need to address, we must address it if we are to change the current political “norm” in the UK.

We must let our parliamentarians know that we support what is best for the UK, regardless of party or political dogma.

Our elected MPs have the tools to preserve parliamentary democracy, to stop lasting damage to the UK and what it stands for, provided we can convince them to use those tools.

The Three Knights opinion was commissioned and paid for by ordinary people, represented by the People’s Challenge. It is clear, concise and authoritative. It was considered and written by the finest legal authorities on the subject.

But even that is not its most important feature. What is most important about The Three Knights opinion is that it shows how our representative parliamentary democracy can stop a dictatorial populist autocracy.

It is the People’s Challenge reply to “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal” and “Any Deal is better than No Deal”.

In all things the UK deserves better than the less worse of two options – the UK deserves the best of all possible options. That is what our government should be striving for and what our parliament should be giving us.

That choice of what is in the best interests of the UK should always be made, following informed, reasoned public and parliamentary debate on all the options, by a free vote in Parliament.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke – All that is required is for good people to stand up for what is right and support our parliamentarians.

Grahame Pigney – The People’s Challenge – 6th June 2017

Posted in Brexit, Democracy, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What is Best for the UK?

Theresa May has called for unity, but what she wants is unity behind a project she has defined. It’s not a project defined either by the referendum or by Parliament. According to some it has not even been defined by the government.

She is determined only to allow consideration of options that appease the UKIP-wing of her party and the right-wing press rather than pursue the outcome that is in the best interests of the UK and its people.

The challenge we face is to convince Parliament to consider all options when deciding what is in the best interests of all the UK’s nations. When the time comes, Parliament needs to make an objective assessment of the comparative merits of an exit agreement, no exit agreement, or the UK’s continued membership of the EU.

The UK’s Parliament has the sovereign authority to evaluate all the options when the outcome of the Art.50 negotiations is known. The Government has a mandate to negotiate terms. It does not have a mandate to sign off on them.

For those who insist that the Government has the right to determine what Parliament considers we simply point to The Three Knights opinion, which we commissioned and the preparedness of The People’s Challenge to ask the courts to adjudicate on this point of law if necessary.

We have long fought for the principle that the UK’s Parliament must decide what is in the best interests of the UK. That is why we joined with others to challenge the Government over its proposed use of archaic Royal Prerogative to trigger Art.50

We now need a cohesive collaboration built around those initiatives & groups that have succeeded, plus our more progressive friends in Westminster, to ensure an objective assessment of all the options following the Art.50 negotiations.

This has already started, a number of groups regularly sharing ideas and information.

The groups involved cover a wide spectrum of interests including:

  • those who are concerned about the side-lining of the UK’s Parliament and the consequent concentration of power in the hands of the executive;
  • others who are seeking ways to encourage people to engage in the democratic process we have in this country ;
  • yet others who are concerned about the prospect of the UK crashing out of the EU without an exit agreement.

These groups do not need to agree on every aspect of the way forward. They will need to find the greatest possible commonality of interests. Some groups have a very high profile; others are less visible.

Building on shared objectives strengthens us, focusing on differences weakens.

It is only by building on the shared objectives that we stand a chance of salvaging a strong, forward-looking United Kingdom from what could otherwise be unfolding over the coming months/years.

 

Posted in Democracy, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Cats In A Sack Politics

Barely a week since the vanity election of Theresa May was called, and already we see what’s going to happen.

Tories are pack animals. Polite, oh so moderate Open Britain, which bent over backwards to be inclusive has been deserted by Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve.  Why? Because Open Britain started to do something – something that targeted Ultra-Brexit nut job Tory MPs.  And when it comes to anything that might hurt their pack, they run back snapping and growling to their own.  Because a Tory win – and big- beckons.  And that matters much more than the national interest.

We see clearly that Brexit, whichever side individual Tory MPs are on, remains in their eyes primarily a struggle for the soul of the Conservative Party.  To hell with the country. The sad, and revealing, thing is this: that the rest of us, the non-Tories, ever thought otherwise.

For we, too, have heard the starting gun, leapt off the blocks, and promptly set about beating one another up, leaving Brexity Tories to stroll their way to a landslide.

In this election there are only two major parties standing.  The Brexit Party, and the Anti-Brexit Party.  And now we have to start acting like that.  Our cats in a sack act is politically inept.  Worse.  It is morally culpable.  Brexit will magnify Tory distain for public services, and serve as a cloak to cover their privatisations, cuts and handouts to their own, and we are aiding and abetting their assault and larceny.

So let’s examine the Anti-Brexit Party.

The Anti-Brexit Party is fractious.  So are the Tories. But we revel in our divisions. We yell them from the rooftops, and parade them in public for the general derision of the electorate.  Oh, the vanity of small differences!

Labour has a leader who is temperamentally unsuited to the role, an inexperienced and divided Front Bench, a sullen PLP, and a mass membership too many of whom mistake a big friendly rally for success.  But it has the greater number of MPs, and most of its voters, and almost all of its MPs, are Remainers. This is simply a fact.  No Anti-Brexit Party can do without Labour, and properly empowered, Labour has some big hitters, with solid, ministerial experience, who could be a huge asset on the campaign trail.

The Liberal Democrats have played a poor hand (8 MPs in 2015) very well.  They have been able to use Brexit to erase memories of the time they had a strong hand, and squandered it, in 2010.  Brexit has energised them, never mind that they have their own Eurosceptic wing.  They have emulated the Tory trick of looking united in public, and it works for them.  But they cannot win this election, and even those of them who believe that they can replace Labour as the Opposition must know this to be a long term goal, not remotely achievable in a few short weeks from where they stand now.  So if they really are an anti-Brexit party, they have to start thinking about how to co-operate with others.  Which primarily means Labour.

Scottish and Northern Irish politics has different dynamics to England and Wales.  Where nationalism is involved, they have little interest in a ‘progressive alliance’, as it is irrelevant to their primary cause.  In any case, they (Ulster Unionists excepted) aren’t an impediment to the Remain side, and this general election will be decided by what happens in the regions of England and Wales.

And there’s the Greens.  Only one MP, but she punches way above her weight.  The Greens have genuine local traction in many places, and have shown a constructive willingness to lend their voting strength, where it might be useful, to other parties.  We saw this in Richmond, where the Lib Dems were able to defeat Zac Goldsmith, and we see it now in Ealing, where they plan to assist Rupa Huq for Labour.  Examples of mature, clear-sighted political strategising from which bigger parties ought to learn.

So what is necessary in this election campaign is that the Anti-Brexit Party needs to stop attacking its own side.  Labour – leave the Lib Dems alone, no matter how irritating you find them.  Lib Dems – so you don’t like Corbyn? He doesn’t matter.  Stop irrelevant attacks on Labour and train your guns on the enemy.  Everyone on the ground start cooperating.  If it’s a Lib Dem seat with an anti-Brexit MP, Labour shouldn’t stand against them.  If it’s a Labour seat, ditto.  In marginals, especially three way marginals, make a hard-headed assessment of which party has the best chance of taking, or retaining the seat, and make it happen.  If Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin could work together in the 1940s, surely this kind of enlightened self-interest could work?

And imagine the difficulty the Tories would have facing a United Front?  If their narrative faced a single, carefully-honed, counter-narrative?

Imagine.  Because odds-on, we’ll be fighting, cats in a sack style, until we emerge, bloody and limping on June 9th into a world even bleaker than the one we woke up to on May 24th 2016.

And it’ll be our own fault.

First published by Yasmin Ali in her blog All Human Life Is Hereabouts on 26th April 2017 https://aliyasminali.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/cats-in-a-sack-politics/

Posted in Democracy, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Loneliness Of The Voter

In the election nobody wanted, spare a thought for the poor, bloody voter.

The more votes we are forced to endure, the emptier, the more pointless the whole ritual becomes. The link between how we vote, and what happens as a result, is weak.  I keep hearing people who voted Leave last year saying things like, “We’ve left Europe now, it’s done.”  The vote happened, we’ve had the result, why should we believe that any consequences follow from that?  Like the anarchists of old, we seem to think that if voting changed anything, we wouldn’t be permitted to do it.  Like Brenda from Bristol, we cry, “Oh for God’s sake, I can’t stand this. Why does she have to do it?”

There will be some political activists energised by any election, and raring to go.  The Lib Dems seem fired up, but they can hardly do worse than they did two years ago.  It is a measure of how quickly the political mood has changed that the five years in which they propped up a right-wing, neoliberal Tory government has been erased from public memory.  The Ultras in the Tory-Brexit Party are also ready to rock and roll, though no doubt they’ll be a little more cautious about whose account they charge the spending to this time.  Labour looks about as ready for an election as I look ready to play for Chelsea.  I’m too knackered, and so are they.

The ennui isn’t simply ‘voting fatigue’, with a major vote every year for the last four taxing our patience.  The real problem is what some are calling the ‘political crash’.

Like the banking crash, where the whole system was shown to be a rickety mess with institutions and rules which were not fit for purpose, and where big, rapacious, amoral beasts roamed unchecked, gobbling up anything good, and decent, and useful, so with the political crash.  The political parties are like the banks.

Labour was the Royal Bank of Scotland.  In the buccaneering 1990s it grew swaggering and shiny, taking over other banks, like Nat West, a colossus bestriding the world.  Things could only get better.  Except they didn’t.  Too big to fail, they forgot to fix the system whilst they were still in charge.

The Tories are Barclays, who went through a very rough patch under a succession of bosses, before clawing their way back into the sunlight.  It took a while, but look at them now!  Not that anyone really believes that things have been sorted, but compared to RBS, who are basically Big Issue sellers, these guys are back on the Cristal.  Riding for a fall, but probably not before they’ve trashed the place.

The SNP’s a hedge fund, a slick votes machine.  Tim Farron’s Lib Dems are a cheery online challenger bank. The Green’s are a credit union, UKIP a payday loans company. They all occupy their places within the system.  But the system is rotten.

That’s why we, the voters, are so lonely.  Just as we need bank accounts, and access to money to function in any way in this society, we also need a political system, with a legislature, and an executive, and parties, and voting systems, to make democracy happen.  And the system is bust.

There needs to be a long, difficult national conversation about who we are, how we live together, how we distribute resources, and how we institutionalise our preferences.  Power needs to be put under the spotlight, including the power of lobbyists, and the power of a Fourth Estate which has moved into Versailles and has taken to wearing powdered wigs, instructing the public to “have cake, and eat it,” as Marie Antoinette didn’t quite say.

But in the absence of that necessary conversation, we are stuck with politics as it is now; a game played by bullies, sociopaths, the entitled and the self-righteous, with as much popular resonance, or real social roots, as a dog fighting syndicate.

This Brexit election, and the next two years, may be the 2008 moment for our politics – when we realise that the crisis is real, and something needs to be done, urgently.

But don’t bank on it.

First published by Yasmin Ali in her blog All Human Life Is Hereabouts on 24th April 2017 The Loneliness of the Voter

Posted in Democracy, What is Best for the UK? | Tagged , | Leave a comment