The Telegraph – Brexit Bulletin

Good afternoon.

The British Government has spent months preparing for Brexit, fighting for the right to start formal negotiations through the courts, and then in Parliament. Theresa May will start that exit process tomorrow by serving notice of Britain’s intention to leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The letter she writes to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, to kick things off will be much scrutinised as an opening gambit. EU leaders are fixated with nailing down the basic divorce terms first, resolving questions like how much Britain owes and what happens to EU expats in Britain, before they get onto issues of future trade and security.

Mrs May will want to reassure her partners by acknowledging these questions, Peter Foster writes, but if she seems too ready to play ball, then Brexiteers will start to fear a diplomatic fudge. Similar balances will have to be negotiated in how ambitious she is about the terms she wants to thrash out, he suggests: demanding too much could alienate EU leaders, but limited ambition will raise eyebrows in the Tory ranks.

One major flashpoint looks to be over free movement, as EU leaders are ready to veto any attempt to make tomorrow the cut-off date for European citizens who move to the UK retaining the same rights as those already living in Britain. Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and MEPs are ready to insist that it can only happen two years after the triggering of Article 50, amid concerns over EU citizens’ rights. How smooth could the trade talks be? Allister Heath argues that there are plenty of creative deals both sides could strike. “The key will be to slash the volume of information required at customs checks and to waive as much of it through as possible,” he writes. “Article 50 is upon us: now the devil is in the detail.”

Source: for MORE

Brexit is our future, the Lords is not

The people you thought were gone from British politics are back. Mandelson, Hain, Kinnock, Patten and Heseltine — these blasts from the past are now at the forefront of attempts to thwart the will of the people in the House of Lords.

Their views are stuck in the 1990s, when only a brave few dared question our EU membership and its grabbing of more and more powers.

The Great British Public have spoken – with more people voting for Brexit than have voted for any political party in any General Election. Brexit is the future of this country; the majority must not let these political has-beens stand in the way.

Yesterday, the House of Lords once again debated the Article 50 Bill – the law which will allow the Government to start the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. They passed an amendment by a majority of 98 requiring Parliament to be given a ‘meaningful vote’ on the final Brexit deal.

This is the second element of the House of Lords’ delaying tactics. But on a positive note, it resulted in the sacking of Lord Heseltine from his role as an adviser to the Government.

Last Wednesday, the Lords implemented their first delaying tactic. They did this by passing an amendment to give EU citizens the right to remain in the UK post-Brexit. There is nothing egregious in this amendment per se, but underneath the motivation is clear – to try and delay Brexit.

Source: for MORE

The Telegraph – Brexit Bulletin

  Good afternoon.

Next month will be very busy for Europe. Theresa May will be hoping to be able to trigger Article 50 and the official Brexit process then, while Europe’s leaders plan to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community. These celebrations won’t matter for Britain too much, as it wasn’t part of the signing and joined later in 1973.

As Europe looks back, it’s tempting to wonder what would have happened if Britain had joined from the beginning. Although Philip Johnston has pondered a bolder scenario – what if it had not joined at all in 1973 and remained an independent neighbour? “The received wisdom is that we would now be an economic basket case on the fringes of a prosperous superpower,” he writes in today’s paper. “Yet there is no certainty of this.”

Mr Johnston suggests that Britain would have saved billions of pounds in membership fees, and have enjoyed the freedom to strike trade deals with emerging economies around the world. “This might have been to our considerable advantage: in the years since we joined the accumulated trade deficit with EU member states is about £500 billion.”

Eschewing membership of the political bloc could have boosted Britain’s international standing, he suggests. “Being part of a supranational body, especially after the Maastricht treaty forged much closer economic and political ties, diminished our sense of independence. It was intended to, of course; but while other EU countries were content with that, the British never were. So had we stayed out we would probably have had a very good relationship with the EU – certainly better than the one we are likely to end up with when the bruising Brexit negotiations are concluded.”

Source: for MORE

The Telegraph – Brexit Bulletin

  Good afternoon.

The Article 50 bill’s passage into law may be on a recess break, but that doesn’t mean ministers have nothing to work on in preparing for Brexit. David Davis has been away in Stockholm today meeting his Swedish counterpart, Europe minister Ann Linde. The mood music was positive, as Linde said both nations had the “same vision” when it came to ensuring Brits living in the EU, and EU migrants living in Britain, “ don’t become a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations” and have the right to stay where they are. The Brexit Secretary in turn said that Britain wanted to have a broad trade agreement with Sweden.

But what will intrigue Brexit-watchers most is Mr Davis’ suggestion that the Government was ready to do battle with the House of Lords in order to get its Article 50 bill through. He noted that the bill to authorise Article 50 had made its way through the Commons “very straightforwardly” with “very solid majorities”, but that he expected the Lords to send it back with amendments. “We call it ping pong, you can imagine why, backwards and forwards of the Bill, but I expect that to be resolved in good time before the end of March.” The Government was conciliatory in how it spoke about the Lords last week, as senior Conservatives raged about the prospect, so Mr Davis’ new tone suggests it is gearing up for a fight.

It’s easy to see why ministers would worry about what the Lords might do to the Article 50 bill. Peers don’t have any pro-Brexit constituents to worry about enraging, and the Conservatives don’t have a majority in the upper chamber. The Government can force it through if the Lords play up, but the methods can be messy and require time. Tory peer, and former MEP, Martin Callanan warned last month that peers would “destroy our political credibility for a generation” if they tried to delay the bill.

How protracted could this stand-off get? Mr Davis has previously declared that it was their “patriotic duty” to pass the Bill, but pro-EU peers may feel just as strongly that it is their patriotic duty to nitpick. If they decide to fire it back to the Commons for some parliamentary ping-pong, the Brexit Secretary will be waiting with his bat.

Source: for MORE

Brexit Bulletin

Good afternoon. Parliament is in recess, having exhausted itself in the largely uneventful battle to amend the Article 50 bill. In ten days’ time, that bill will pass to the House of Lords. So what might they do?

There are 252 Conservative peers, 203 Labour peers, 178 crossbenchers, and 102 (!) Liberal Democrats. In other words, the Conservatives can be outvoted. Yet it’s extremely unlikely that there will be a serious attempt to block the bill completely. The Lords tend to take their cue from the other house and from the people, both of whom have sent the clearest signal possible that this bill must pass. That is to say nothing of anonymous, presumably sanctioned chuntering from the Government about not going against the will of the people – though dark words about abolishment were walked back by No 10 over the course of last night.

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to continue their quixotic quest for a second referendum to ratify Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Their position may have some democratic logic given the enormous diversity of possible Brexits posited before last June. But I would assess as extremely low the appetite of a population which has just been through the most intense period of political bloodletting since Maastricht to do it all over again.

Labour, it seems, will be slyer. Its leader in the Lords, Baroness Smith of Basildon, says “the stakes are too high” for them not to “scrutinise” the bill. The party’s eight proposed amendments require the PM:

Source: for MORE

The Telegraph

Good afternoon. Can we make a deal? You, I hope, want to keep reading this Bulletin. I’d like to buy a motorbike. So I’m going to ask you to start paying for the Bulletin – and if you don’t, well, I’ll just keep on writing it, same as before. Now have I got your attention?

This was effectively the Labour Party’s approach to Theresa May’s Article 50 bill. Predictably, it failed. The PM scored 9-0, getting her 132-word bill through by 494 votes to 122 without a single amendment. Good thing we had that lengthy court case, eh? It will now move to the Lords, which “government sources” have threatened to abolish, and where Labour peers intend to fight for a guarantee of EU residents’ rights, a more robust vote on any Brexit deal, and regular updates on her negotiations.

In the end, Diane Abbott voted with the Government to pass the unamended bill, saving her old friend Jeremy Corbyn from having to fire her and suffering the attention of David Davis (who tried to kiss her in the Strangers’ Bar and was quite reasonably told to “f— off”). Clive Lewis, on the other hand, did resign, so the not-so-secret non-linear Labour leadership contest is go. Though his decision has triggered anonymous accusations of careerism, I believe it was an act of conscience; witness his agonised appeal to his constituents. In any case, 14 other shadow ministers voted against the bill without resigning. Mr Corbyn, whose declaration that “the real fight starts now” was met with scorn by Remainers who contend he has missed it by a year, says he will conduct a limited reshuffle. He also dismissed reports that he will voluntarily step down as “fake news”. I will merely note the multiple reports that his office is preparing to spend the summer pushing through a change to the leadership rules which would make it easier for other left-wingers to stand.

But hold on. Ever since the furore over the Maastricht Treaty 25 years ago, it has been reliable conventional wisdom that Conservative governments always fall apart over Europe. It happened to Margaret Thatcher, it happened to John Major, and David Cameron had to call a certain referendum to stop it from happening to him. So when Theresa May took power last July it seemed a reasonable bet she would have similar problem (I wrote that she had a “fine line to walk”). And yet the power which even Remain-inclined Tories have granted her this week suggests that wisdom may no longer hold true. MPs who might have rebelled on amendments to guarantee EU residents’ rights or to ensure a Parliamentary vote before it’s too late to matter have instead accepted the Government’s non-binding assurances on these topics and allowed her to proceed with what last year would have been considered a pretty hard Brexit.

Of course it could still all go wrong. Of course anything could happen. But could it be? Could it really be that the Tories’ European curse is finally broken?

Source: for MORE

Morning Briefing – The Telegraph

Good morning.

MPs voted overwhelmingly (461-89) last night in favour of a motion urging ministers to trigger Article 50 next year. Their vote is not as important as as whatever the Supreme Court decides in January, after deliberating over the arguments it is hearing this week, as to whether Theresa May needs approval from her MPs before she can trigger it. But it was the first time a majority of parliamentarians have voted to leave the European Union, so it is still noteworthy. It was the “day MPs spoke for Britain”, according to the Mail. “Hooray! MPs say yes to May on Exit”, says the Express. Leavers are in especially good spirits, with Iain Duncan Smith hailing the vote as a “a blank cheque for the Government” given it had Labour’s support.

There has been much speculation as to what would happen if the Supreme Court insisted Mrs May had to win MPs over before she could set the Brexit plans in motion. Some suggested it would allow pro-Remain MPs to wreck them, but James Kirkup points out that the Opposition doesn’t seem in such a mood given most of its MPs backed May’s amendment. “Labour may attempt to make trouble for Mrs May, but a simple lack of clarity around its own position and its obvious fear of the “Brexit betrayal” narrative mean it will fail to derail her…Mrs May will get her way,” he writes. The 89 MPs who “shamefully voted against” are guilty, we say in our leader, of “an act of contempt for the democratic result of the referendum for which they must answer to the electorate”. Some of them clearly aren’t worried – like David Lammy – as they represent overwhelmingly pro-Remain constituencies.

Where does this vote leave the Supreme Court? Its judges are still carrying on with their work, although Tory MPs are questioning how relevant it really is. Andrew Bridgen suggests that “events in the house have made the Supreme Court ruling an irrelevance”. Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, appeared to question the need for the case if Parliament had already voted to give the Prime Minister its support. He conceded that the average man in the street would find it “odd” for the courts to say that the Government needed the “magic wand” of legislation to trigger Article 50 if motions had been passed in the Commons and Lords explicitly calling for that.

Parliament’s vote may be symbolic, but it is important for Mrs May as a sign of which has the momentum. Her challenge now, Allister Heath writes in today’s paper, is to rebuild “the old 65 per cent coalition of Eurosceptic voters” and some of the soft Remainers. The “angry 25 per cent who voted Remain” are a “lost cause” in his view. For those MPs who still stand in her way, she should explain that “we’ve voted and now, for the most part, we want to move on: woe betide any politician who cannot accept that”.