Can Brexit still be stopped?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the UK government cannot trigger article 50 to leave the EU without an act of Parliament (i.e. a vote on a bill).
So what does that mean? Could Brexit still be stopped?
Well unfortunately it seems very unlikely:
a) the Tories have a working majority in the House of Commons (and they will all or nearly all vote to trigger article 50)
b) there is virtually no opposition.

MPs generally accept the result of the referendum.

The story we are told is: - The people of the UK have spoken and the majority wants to leave the EU. The terms of the exit from the EU will be negotiated by the government. Parliament will then vote and most probably will vote to trigger article 50.

So will this parliamentary vote be irrelevant? 

Well it could lead to some changes in the terms of the deal, with more opposition in the House of Lords, where the Tories don't have a working majority, but ultimately it appears unlikely to block Brexit.

Should Brexit now be considered a fait accompli? 

Well this is where I am struggling. Why shouldn't the "opposition" be opposed to something they don't believe is good for their country?
After all the majority (51.9%) voted to leave in the referendum, but what about the 48.1% who wanted to remain? What about the votes of London? What about the votes of Scotland and of Northern Ireland?
Not to mention the voices of all those people who were not even allowed to vote: anyone below 18 (the generation that will be mostly affected by Brexit) and those who have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years.
Let's not forget that this referendum should never have happened in the first place.
The leave campaign was shocking and many voters were misled to vote leave on the basis of falsehoods (or "alternative facts", as they are now being called in the US). One of these lies was the claim that the EU was costing the UK £350 million a week and that this money could be used to fund the NHS. Of course, many still believe that it is a good idea to leave the EU, but many others strongly oppose this view.

In her Brexit speech of January 17th, Theresa May said: "after all the division and discord, the country is coming together. The referendum was divisive at times. And those divisions have taken time to heal."
I don't believe that the country is coming together. From what I hear and read in the media and social media, the population of the UK is still very divided.
I see many other contradictions and debatable items in Theresa May's speech.
She said that people "voted to leave the European Union and embrace the world". Really?
"June the 23rd was not the moment Britain chose to step back from the world. It was the moment we chose to build a truly Global Britain". I have very strong doubts about that. Surely you can be part of the European Union and be global at the same time. In fact, how can you leave the European Union and still be global?
She also said "You will still be welcome in this country as we hope our citizens will be welcome in yours." That's not the same message that transpires from "controlling immigration from the EU".
Leaving aside all the economic and judicial benefits (including workers' rights) of being in the EU (and consequently in the single market and in the customs union), I believe that the freedom of movement of people is a huge achievement. I consider myself extremely lucky, because I am part of the Erasmus generation. I know the importance of freedom of movement and I and many of my European friends have benefited greatly from this. I was able to live, study and work in four EU countries, one of which is (or was) the UK.
So I am very disappointed to see that the Labour party is simply giving up.
As awful as having Trump as President may be (and I know that four years is plenty of time to disrupt a country, destroy human rights and relations with the rest of the world), in four years' time there will be another election and hopefully by then there will be more suitable candidates.
But if the UK leaves the EU, the single market, the customs union... it will be permanent.
So maybe the vote of the UK Parliament will be irrelevant, but at least the politicians that oppose Brexit could make their voices heard and, more importantly, should make the voices of the people they represent heard.

Brexit means more than Brexit

Following the initial frenzy of activity in the aftermath of the Brexit vote of 23 June 2016, there has been very little information about what Brexit actually means. That was until yesterday, 17 January 2017, when Theresa May laid out her plans for Brexit. And yes it will be a very hard Brexit.

The key points of her speech can be summarised as

1) Not only will the UK (or what's left of it) leave the EU, but it will also leave the single market.

2) The UK will also (partially?) leave the customs union.

3) The UK wants to control immigration from Europe.

4) The UK will withdraw from the European Court of Justice.

5) To the other members of the EU: "You'd better not punish us in the negotiations or else it will hurt you. But let's remain friends, yeah?"- if that's not an open threat, then what is?

6) The UK parliament will get to vote on the EU deal, but apparently whatever happens Britain is leaving the EU.

The European view can be summed up as: "At least now we know what you really want. Good luck to you, but we'll be stronger than ever".

The general consensus in Europe is that it will be Britain who will be worse off, not the EU. 

The Daily Mail called her the "new iron lady" on its front page today. How ironic that in that same venue (Lancaster House) 29 years ago Margaret Thatcher, the iron lady, gave a speech welcoming the creation of the single market. Now Theresa May is set to wipe it all away.


What does it all mean?

Single market: the single or internal market is an area in which goods, services, capital and people can move freely.

Customs union: there are no tariffs imposed on goods when they cross borders between member states. Also, EU members apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the EU and are not allowed to negotiate their own trade deals with third countries. 

It is possible to be a member of just the single market but not the customs union (Norway, Iceland or Lichtenstein). It is also possible to be a member of just the customs union but not the single market (Turkey, Andorra or the Isle of Man). 

European Court of Justice: the ECJ is based in Luxembourg and interprets EU law. It makes sure that EU law is applied in the same way in all EU countries. It can also be used by individuals, companies or organisations to take action against an EU institution if they feel it has infringed their rights. The ECJ does not create EU law. 

Currywurst in Berlin... lobster in Paris

When Theresa May met Angela Merkel in Berlin on Wednesday, Bio-Currywurst was probably not on the menu (or at least one would hope so). 
In a pre-dinner press conference, the German Chancellor agreed with the British Prime Minister that more time is needed before Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty can be triggered. She also did not dismiss the possibility of a deal that combines free trade with controls on immigration. However, Angela Merkel also added that there will be no negotiations until Article 50 has been invoked.


Before setting off on her EU travels, Theresa May announced through a spokesperson that the UK is giving up its planned presidency of the European Council (due to start in July 2017) to focus on Brexit negotiations. The decision was reached in a phone call between Theresa May and Donald Tusk, the President of the EU Council.

 

When Theresa May met François Hollande the following evening in Paris, the French President was not quite so accommodating. Although he did recognise that the UK needs more time before it can trigger Article 50, he was very clear about France's position on free trade. If the UK wants access to the single market it cannot put immigration controls on EU citizens, i.e. free trade cannot be granted without free movement of people.
In case you are wondering what was on the menu in Paris: lobster salad as a starter, veal with spinach as a main course, vanilla mousse with strawberries and cheese for dessert. Bon appétit!

To Brexit or not to Brexit - that is the question

Last Friday I was wondering who would be the next politician to quit.
I didn't have to wait long to find out. As I turned on the BBC World Service at lunch time today, I was greeted with the breaking news that Andrea Leadsom was pulling out of the Tory leadership race.
Officially this is in the interest of the country: to speed up the process and in view of Theresa May's greater support amongst the parliamentary party. However, there are suggestions that the media coverage of the weekend may have been too much to handle. In case you missed it, in an interview to The Times, Mrs Leadsom basically said that being a mum gave her an advantage over Theresa May, who doesn't have children. Needless to say the statement did not go down well.
Or perhaps she was put off by yesterday's booing during Andy Murray's victory speech. When Andy highlighted David Cameron's presence on Centre Court and commented on the difficulties of being a PM, the Wimbledon crowd booed.
So now everything is in place for Theresa May to become the next Prime Minister. Bearing in mind what has happened so far, anything could happen between now and Wednesday, when David Cameron is set to step down.
Of course, the main question remains: to Brexit or not to Brexit?
In the words of Theresa May this morning: "Brexit means Brexit and we're going to make a success of it."
However, many in the UK and in the EU are praying and hoping that Brexit can still be avoided.
At the weekend the UK government turned down a petition signed by 4 million people for a second referendum.
The latest initiative is a letter signed by over 1,000 British barristers urging the prime minister to allow parliament to decide whether the UK should leave the EU. They argue that the referendum result is advisory, as it did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU. The barristers propose that "the government establishes a royal commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations. The parliamentary vote should not take place until the commission has reported.”
Given that this latest recommendation is extremely reasonable and responsible, we can conclude that the politicians in Westminster will almost certainly ignore it.

Who will quit next? The Brexit soap opera continues.

For those of us watching the Brexit saga unfold, one thing has become clear:  the main Brexit campaigners are not only clueless. They are irresponsible. Instead of trying to solve the problems they created, all they do is abandon ship and thus continue to behave irresponsibly.

1) Calling the referendum was in itself irresponsible.

2) The campaign leading to the referendum was irresponsible and based on lies, scaremongering and racist claims.

3) Once the politicians realised that the damage was done (and more damage will be done once/if article 50 is triggered), they made the very irresponsible decision to quit.

Shortly after the final results became known, David Cameron resigned as PM and Tory leader. Then Boris Johnson announced that he would not take part in the Tory leadership race and thus would not become the new PM. This was followed by another shocking announcement, this time by Nigel Farage himself, of his resignation as UKIP (UK Independence Party) leader. Mr Farage said he wanted his life back, while the Remain voters want the EU back. I will not repeat the tweet by British singer Charlotte Church because it is rather rude, but you can look it up yourselves.
  
I was wrong  in my last post, however. Nigel Farage did not speak for the last time in the European Parliament. He still intends to "comment from time to time". Although he no longer wants to lead UKIP, Mr Farage will remain an MEP, or Member of the European Parliament, and of course keep his salary until the UK officially leaves the EU.  
Still, you never know, Nigel Farage may change his mind. He'd already announced his resignation in May 2015, only to backtrack a few days later. 

The three quitters have quite rightly been described as "rats fleeing a sinking ship" by a former Belgian Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, thousands of people marched through London last weekend to protest against the referendum decision to leave the EU. With the majority of young people in Britain extremely disappointed, if not devastated, by the results of the referendum, some EU countries are considering offering dual nationality to young British citizens living in Germany, Italy or France. However, that does not solve the problem for those remaining in Britain or those who are still too young to leave. Not to mention the EU nationals currently living, studying and/or working in the UK.

This week, a motion in the House of Commons calling on the government to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the UK was passed, but it it is not binding. The UK government claims it would be a mistake to give guarantees to EU nationals in the UK without similar concessions for UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU.

And just in case you were wondering whether things might be improving in the business world, the Pound sterling this week fell to a new 31-year low against the dollar. 

Amongst all the uncertainty of recent weeks, clarity is emerging as to who will be the next British Prime Minister. It will be a woman and will either be Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom. 

Please join me again soon in "To Brexit or not to Brexit - that is the question".