In the last few weeks I've been delving deep into Parliamentary discussions from the late 1969s and early 1970s about the possibility of the United Kingdom joining what was then the European Economic Communities.
I'm struck by how similar Theresa May's views now are to those of the odious racist Enoch Powell.
I plan to blog in more detail how Theresa May's views parallel those of Enoch Powell.
Perhaps that will closely follow her Brexit speech scheduled to be delivered tomorrow.
I find it hugely worrying that a British Prime Minister in 2017 is so close in her views to an acknowleged racist politician of forty or fifty years ago.
Sunday, 15 January 2017
Scotland has been conned twice - in the Independence Referendum and in the Brexit Referendum
Scotland has been conned, not once but twice.
First in the Independence Referendum.
Second in the Brexit Referendum.
And, so far as I'm aware, the public and the media haven't spotted the subtle but important ways in which those referenda were rigged in favour of an England-based, Convervative-led Government and its preferred outcome.
Perhaps I should explain what I'm talking about.
Did you realise that the electorates for the Scottish Independence Referendum and the Brexit Referendum weren't the same?
For the Scottish Referendum EU citizens who weren't citizens of the UK or Ireland could vote.
For the Brexit Referendum those same EU citizens who weren't citizens of the UK or Ireland could NOT vote.
In the Representation of the People Act 1983 those EU citizens who are citizens of the European Union but aren't citizens of the UK or Ireland are called "relevant citizens of the EU".
Let's think about how that subtle rigging of the election in favour of the Conservative Government at Westminster played out.
In the Independence Referendum the "relevant citizens of the EU" had a vote.
In a setting where the UK Government played the risks to Scotland of exiting the EU, those "relevant citizens" would, I anticipate, have largely voted "No".
How many "relevant citizens of the EU" live in Scotland? I don't know. Do you?
If the Independence Referendum had excluded those "relevant citizens of the EU", I think the result would, at a minimum, have been much closer.
Perhaps "Yes" would have won and Scotland would now be deep in negotiations towards Independence.
But in the Brexit Referendum, those "relevant citizens of the EU" could NOT vote.
If the 2 million or so "relevant citizens of the EU" had been allowed a vote I think they would overwhelmingly have voted to remain in the EU.
An extra 2 million or so votes to remain in the European Union could have avoided the current Brexit Madness.
Scotalnd has been conned ... twice.
And, as far as I'm aware, Scotland hasn't even noticed.
First in the Independence Referendum.
Second in the Brexit Referendum.
And, so far as I'm aware, the public and the media haven't spotted the subtle but important ways in which those referenda were rigged in favour of an England-based, Convervative-led Government and its preferred outcome.
Perhaps I should explain what I'm talking about.
Did you realise that the electorates for the Scottish Independence Referendum and the Brexit Referendum weren't the same?
For the Scottish Referendum EU citizens who weren't citizens of the UK or Ireland could vote.
For the Brexit Referendum those same EU citizens who weren't citizens of the UK or Ireland could NOT vote.
In the Representation of the People Act 1983 those EU citizens who are citizens of the European Union but aren't citizens of the UK or Ireland are called "relevant citizens of the EU".
Let's think about how that subtle rigging of the election in favour of the Conservative Government at Westminster played out.
In the Independence Referendum the "relevant citizens of the EU" had a vote.
In a setting where the UK Government played the risks to Scotland of exiting the EU, those "relevant citizens" would, I anticipate, have largely voted "No".
How many "relevant citizens of the EU" live in Scotland? I don't know. Do you?
If the Independence Referendum had excluded those "relevant citizens of the EU", I think the result would, at a minimum, have been much closer.
Perhaps "Yes" would have won and Scotland would now be deep in negotiations towards Independence.
But in the Brexit Referendum, those "relevant citizens of the EU" could NOT vote.
If the 2 million or so "relevant citizens of the EU" had been allowed a vote I think they would overwhelmingly have voted to remain in the EU.
An extra 2 million or so votes to remain in the European Union could have avoided the current Brexit Madness.
Scotalnd has been conned ... twice.
And, as far as I'm aware, Scotland hasn't even noticed.
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
Is Theresa May's policy on immigration rational or xenophobic?
Following David Cameron's lead, Theresa May has a policy of reducing net annual immigration to the "tens of thousands", which I take to mean a target for net annual immigration of less than 100,000.
What is the rational basis for that policy?
Does it make sense for the UK economy?
Could it damage the UK economy?
Which sectors might be damaged and by how much?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the target for net annual immigration set by David Cameron and followed by Theresa May seems to have no well-researched rational basis.
If anyone knows of any detailed analysis of this issue please feel free to leave a comment with a link to any credible research paper.
If I'm correct that neither David Cameron nor Theresa May have (or have had) a rational immigration policy what is the point of "taking back control" of immigration?
What is the rational basis for that policy?
Does it make sense for the UK economy?
Could it damage the UK economy?
Which sectors might be damaged and by how much?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the target for net annual immigration set by David Cameron and followed by Theresa May seems to have no well-researched rational basis.
If anyone knows of any detailed analysis of this issue please feel free to leave a comment with a link to any credible research paper.
If I'm correct that neither David Cameron nor Theresa May have (or have had) a rational immigration policy what is the point of "taking back control" of immigration?
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
Theresa May's "Muddled Speaking" causes the pound to fall
On Sunday (8th January) Theresa May was interviewd by Sophy Ridge.
Theresa May was, of course, asked many questions about Brexit.
On the basis of Mrs. May's "muddled speaking", the pound fell.
See, for example, Pound falls on May's Brexit comments.
If the pound falls on a hint of what I call "Trainwreck Brexit", how much more economic damage might it do if it becomes clear that Theresa May is headed towards Trainwreck Brexit?
Theresa May was, of course, asked many questions about Brexit.
On the basis of Mrs. May's "muddled speaking", the pound fell.
See, for example, Pound falls on May's Brexit comments.
If the pound falls on a hint of what I call "Trainwreck Brexit", how much more economic damage might it do if it becomes clear that Theresa May is headed towards Trainwreck Brexit?
Sunday, 8 January 2017
Does any British political party have a rational immigration policy?
Immigration, so we are told by some commentators, played a key part in the slim majority in favour of Brexit in the Referendum of 23rd June 2016.
It occurs to me that no UK political party has produced a detailed objective analysis of the economic benefits and disbenefits of different levels of immigration.
David Cameron's commitment to reduce net annual immigration to the "tens of thousands" is discussed at length in the media.
But nobody, so far as I'm aware, has asked the serious question of whether reducing net annual immigration to the "tens of thousands" is beneficial or harmful to the UK economy.
I've sent a couple of Freedom of Information Requests to see if Government Departments have looked at his important question and what answers, if any, they've arrived at.
It occurs to me that no UK political party has produced a detailed objective analysis of the economic benefits and disbenefits of different levels of immigration.
David Cameron's commitment to reduce net annual immigration to the "tens of thousands" is discussed at length in the media.
But nobody, so far as I'm aware, has asked the serious question of whether reducing net annual immigration to the "tens of thousands" is beneficial or harmful to the UK economy.
I've sent a couple of Freedom of Information Requests to see if Government Departments have looked at his important question and what answers, if any, they've arrived at.
Saturday, 7 January 2017
The so-called "Great Repeal Bill" is a fraud
This is a topic I'll likely return to in greater detail in some future post(s) but in this post I want to make the point that the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" is a fraud to be perpetrated on the British people by Theresa May's Government.
Why do I believe that?
There are two reasons which seem obvious to me.
First, the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" will repeal nothing.
Broadly, it would put into UK Law all EU Law which exists at the time of the proposed Brexit.
A more honest title would be the "Consolidation of European Union Law Bill".
Second, the Court of Justice of the European Union would continue to provide the final Court of appeal on that consolidated Law for, likely, decades to come.
Why?
Imagine a Court case between two parties which turns on some aspect of what is currently EU Law and which is transferred into UK Law by the "Consolidation of European Union Law Bill".
If the case turns on the exact nature of the Law that was consolidated into UK Law, the only authoritative voice on that question is the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The procedure to seek justice doesn't change.
The Court case ascends up from, say, the High Court through the Court of Appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
If the case turns on the interpretation of EU Law at the date of Brexit, the final authority on such a question will continue to be the Court of Justice of the European Union.
There are fascinating constiutional complexities which will need to be provided for.
For example, what rights of appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union will United Kingdom individuals and businesses have post-Brexit?
If Threesa May "achieves" what I call "Trainwreck Brexit" will there be a legal limbo where there is no speicified right of appeal from the UK Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union?
If so, what damage will that do to business confidence with respect to future investment in the UK?
Why do I believe that?
There are two reasons which seem obvious to me.
First, the so-called "Great Repeal Bill" will repeal nothing.
Broadly, it would put into UK Law all EU Law which exists at the time of the proposed Brexit.
A more honest title would be the "Consolidation of European Union Law Bill".
Second, the Court of Justice of the European Union would continue to provide the final Court of appeal on that consolidated Law for, likely, decades to come.
Why?
Imagine a Court case between two parties which turns on some aspect of what is currently EU Law and which is transferred into UK Law by the "Consolidation of European Union Law Bill".
If the case turns on the exact nature of the Law that was consolidated into UK Law, the only authoritative voice on that question is the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The procedure to seek justice doesn't change.
The Court case ascends up from, say, the High Court through the Court of Appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
If the case turns on the interpretation of EU Law at the date of Brexit, the final authority on such a question will continue to be the Court of Justice of the European Union.
There are fascinating constiutional complexities which will need to be provided for.
For example, what rights of appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union will United Kingdom individuals and businesses have post-Brexit?
If Threesa May "achieves" what I call "Trainwreck Brexit" will there be a legal limbo where there is no speicified right of appeal from the UK Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of the European Union?
If so, what damage will that do to business confidence with respect to future investment in the UK?
Sunday, 1 January 2017
A Brexit game-changer? The Queen put the Royal Prerogative in the hands of Parliament in 1972
In 1972 the Queen took what I believe to be an unprecedented step - she placed into the hands of Parliament her "interest and prerogative" insofar as they related to what was then the European Communities Bill.
The effect of that action by the Queen in my estimation is that the Government has no power to use the Royal Prerogative in matters relating to what is now the European Union, other than as explicitly allowed by Parliament.
If I'm correct then the Government has no power to use the Royal Prerogative to make a "decision" of the kind described in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
Nor does the Government have any power to use the Royal Prerogative to send a "notification" to the European Union as described in paragraph 2 of Article 50.
If I'm correct about the implications of the Queen's actions in 1972, Theresa May has been misleading the country for almost six months about the Government's supposed power to use the Royal Prerogative to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union.
Similarly, if I'm correct, the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC MP, and James Eadie QC have seriously misled the Supreme Court as to the supposed power of the Government to use the Royal Prerogative.
The false position hitherto put forward by Theresa May's Government and its lawyers is that the Government has the power to use the Royal Prerogative with respect to Brexit.
The true position, I believe, is that the Government has no power at all to use the Royal Prerogative with respect to Brexit other than any power Parliament explicitly gives to it.
Here is a link to where I first publicly asked the question about the Queen having placed her "interest and prerogative" into the hands of Parliament:
Brexit Appeal: Did the Queen put the Royal Prerogative in the hands of Parliament in 1972?
The link includes the quote from Hansard which I believe may prove to be a "Brexit game-changer".
It seems to me that the Supreme Court must carefully consider this matter if its upcoming decision on the Brexit Appeal is to have any credibility.
Accordingly, I will be writing to the Supreme Court Justices to draw this hugely important matter to their attention.
I will ask the Supreme Court Justices to give careful consideration to the question of whether or not there is a need to hold further hearings of the Brexit Appeal so that this potentially hugely important action of the Queen can be properly considered.
The effect of that action by the Queen in my estimation is that the Government has no power to use the Royal Prerogative in matters relating to what is now the European Union, other than as explicitly allowed by Parliament.
If I'm correct then the Government has no power to use the Royal Prerogative to make a "decision" of the kind described in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
Nor does the Government have any power to use the Royal Prerogative to send a "notification" to the European Union as described in paragraph 2 of Article 50.
If I'm correct about the implications of the Queen's actions in 1972, Theresa May has been misleading the country for almost six months about the Government's supposed power to use the Royal Prerogative to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union.
Similarly, if I'm correct, the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC MP, and James Eadie QC have seriously misled the Supreme Court as to the supposed power of the Government to use the Royal Prerogative.
The false position hitherto put forward by Theresa May's Government and its lawyers is that the Government has the power to use the Royal Prerogative with respect to Brexit.
The true position, I believe, is that the Government has no power at all to use the Royal Prerogative with respect to Brexit other than any power Parliament explicitly gives to it.
Here is a link to where I first publicly asked the question about the Queen having placed her "interest and prerogative" into the hands of Parliament:
Brexit Appeal: Did the Queen put the Royal Prerogative in the hands of Parliament in 1972?
The link includes the quote from Hansard which I believe may prove to be a "Brexit game-changer".
It seems to me that the Supreme Court must carefully consider this matter if its upcoming decision on the Brexit Appeal is to have any credibility.
Accordingly, I will be writing to the Supreme Court Justices to draw this hugely important matter to their attention.
I will ask the Supreme Court Justices to give careful consideration to the question of whether or not there is a need to hold further hearings of the Brexit Appeal so that this potentially hugely important action of the Queen can be properly considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)