MPs can stop a no deal Brexit, but they won’t


There has been much talk of how difficult it will be to stop the new government crashing the UK out of the EU without honouring our international commitments.

As things stand, our new prime minister has declared that he is abandoning the deal the previous government he was part of agreed with the EU at the end of last year, and in particular the commitment we made to a backstop a year before that. All this despite having no mandate to do so, either through a general election or referendum.

There are still likely to be several ways to prevent a no deal outcome and, just to spread a bit of optimism, here’s one which might work.

Alarm signal. Penalty for improper use.

Photo © 2013 Les Chatfield (CC BY 2.0)

Time for parliament to actually take back control; here’s how.

Step 1: Keep Parliament Open

Incredible that this even needs saying but parliament needs to avoid being shut down by the latest PM with totalitarian tendencies.

I’m hoping this is actually borderline paranoia because it would be really really stupid to try and shut parliament out of the most far reaching constitutional change facing the country in my lifetime, especially when its stated position is that no deal is unacceptable.

If you’ve watched the history channel, you know that shutting down parliament doesn’t end well.

Fortunately MPs have already put some measures in place to reduce the chance that the PM will be able to abuse his powers. There is also a CrowdJustice campaign that is taking legal action to prevent parliament being suspended.

Hopefully step one is the easy bit!

Step 2: Vote of No Confidence

Enough trying to seize the order paper for the day, or hijacking legislation, the government is treating parliament and the country with contempt, and it’s time to do something about it.

Unfortunately my understanding is that a vote of no confidence must be tabled by the leader of opposition. (I’m sure it’s not quite that clear cut but he could table one if he could be bothered.)

The problem is he was so keen to start the summer break that he forgot he was meant be tabling a vote of no confidence. You would think he would have set a reminder or something given Labour policy is to have a general election. At least I think that’s their policy, it’s kind of hard to tell.

Anyway, assuming the current leader of the opposition is still unwilling to help, we need a new one. Labour aren’t going to elect a useful leader any time soon, so we need a new official opposition, which is going to require a lot of MPs to put the country before their party, and their careers.

Enough MPs need to switch from their current party to a “National Unity” party for it to be large enough to take over from Labour as the official opposition.

Ideally they would come from all parties, but the majority will need to come from Labour a bit like a supercharged independent group mass resignation. They could even just rename the party formerly known as Change UK (again) if that would help!

Unfortunately step two is where this plan fails. Too many MPs still seem to fail to grasp just how serious thus is, even the ones saying it’s serious. Still, here’s the rest just for fun.

Step 3: Form Government of National Unity

Assuming the no confidence motion is carried, MPs must form a new government of national unity in two weeks to avoid parliament being closed down for a general election. (That would be bad because you know who would still be in charge as the article 50 extension runs out.)

This requires enough MPs to have confidence in the newly formed government of national unity, either with even more MPs moving to the new party, through coalitions, confidence and supply agreements, or a mixture of all these.

Step three also has zero chance of happening. Sorry, this is supposed to be full of British optimism, so onward to the tricky bit!

Step 4: Stop No Deal Brexit

Unlike the post-fact government which has just forced it’s way in to number 10, a government of national unity needs to remember it does not actually have a new mandate and must not therefore over reach.

The most it should do is prevent a no deal Brexit and provide the country the time and space to choose what happens next in a calm and reasonable way.

Remember, Vote Leave’s Boris Johnson pledged that “After we Vote Leave, there won’t be a sudden change that disrupts the economy…. We won’t rush into it. When we do make changes we will make them carefully.” It’s about time we stopped rushing to crash out into a legal limbo at the end of October for no good reason.

There are a few possible options:

  • Pass the WA and get all required legislation through to safely enter the transition period (requires a new session of parliament)
  • Hold a referendum (requires agreement on the question to ask etc. Good luck!)
  • Revoke article 50 (the best way to start over with clear heads)

Note: the first two options will need the EU to agree another extension.

Almost there!

Step 5: Call a General Election

Having prevented a no deal Brexit, we’ll quickly need a new government with a strong mandate to confront the huge political debt left over from the last few years. (Sure, you could have had chaos with Ed Miliband, but that would have been so dull.)

Well I never said it was a good plan, but at least it didn’t involve The Queen! Have you got any better ideas? Someone must have!

Whatever happens next, every MP will be responsible.

Advertisements

Being pragmatic


Apparently the government is worried about spreading misleading news:

Just because a story is online, doesn’t mean it’s true. The internet is great, but can also be used to spread misleading news and content. Make sure you know what you’re sharing. Don’t feed the beast. (Cabinet Office)

Maybe they’ve been reading my MP’s Brexit updates. Her latest update isn’t an improvement…

Well it’s been another bumpy week pushing the Brexit process along in a leaky Westminster, and from my inbox, more than at any other time, it’s crystal clear that this Parliament’s inability to find a route by which it can support a smooth, orderly and timely exit from the EU is harming our democracy.

Parliament had been trying to find a compromise solution to allow a smooth and orderly exit, and found several which were closer to a majority than Theresa May’s deal, despite the government’s efforts to block the process.

As Eastleigh’s MP, I’ve always recognised that MPs on ALL sides need to be pragmatic – if we are to move forward towards negotiating our future trading relationship, and that’s why I’ve supported the Withdrawal Agreement agreed with the EU27.

Pragmatism is clearly now a euphemism for agreeing with Theresa May, who hasn’t changed her red lines since she made them up, and hasn’t changed her ‘deal’ since November.

If MPs across the House had chosen to do the same, by now we would have left the European Union and be doing exactly that.

Out of interest, what do you think an MP’s job is?

Instead, MPs, in particular this week led by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, are pushing through Bills within just ONE DAY in order to try and thwart Brexit.

I agree that they’ve left things a little late but rushing the article 50 extension bill through doesn’t seem exactly surprising after the Prime Minister only requested a short extension despite the previous vote on requesting an extension. Also, it doesn’t ‘thwart’ Brexit at all, which I’m sure you realise.

If Ms Cooper and others were so intent on preventing a No Deal Brexit then they should have supported the negotiated Deal – it’s clear that their actual end goal is to drag, disrupt and frustrate the process in the hope that we never leave.

Threatening MPs with no deal to force them to agree a deal which they, rightly, believe to be bad for the country hardly seems pragmatic. At least they are trying to prevent no deal; there was a time time when you were concerned that the opposition wanted to “crash economy into No deal & blame this on Govt” which was far fetched even then.

Other MPs, led by the Liberal Democrats and SNP have taken a separate route to thwarting Brexit, instead choosing to push for a ‘Confirmatory’ formerly ‘Peoples’ Vote – a move supported almost exclusively by those who wish to reverse the result of the 2016 Referendum and ensure that we remain in the EU.

You really don’t seem to want to allow people to have a say on whether the deal negotiated by Theresa May meets their expectations. That would be slightly odd even if there wasn’t an impasse in parliament but, under the circumstances, it seems like a perfectly pragmatic solution to the current problems.

If a Second Referendum was held, I do believe it would be even more divisive than the first and only add to where we are now. People want us to do our jobs and deliver for them. It’s a very fair ask! I know people do still feel strongly on either side too and I appreciate and understand this. The division and current lack of cohesion can’t be taken lightly.

Holding the first referendum on Theresa May’s deal may well be divisive but that very much depends on how it’s conducted. If politicians started being honest about the trade-offs we face, and stopped framing the ongoing democratic process as thwarting the will of the people, or a betrayal, a referendum may well provide the space needed to bring most of the country back together. It’s certainly better than threatening the country with endless cliff edges to get your own way.

So, I have voted for every option by which I feel could lead to a timely exit from the EU – delivering on the result of the 2016 Referendum and to try to move us forward.

You have done a good job of supporting the deal we agreed with the EU, which only Kenneth Clarke did better at.

Recent by-election results have shown the impact that the inability to deliver Brexit is having on our democracy, with the number of people using their vote visibly reduced to around 30% in some areas – this comes on the backdrop of the EU Referendum which saw close to 80% of the people in our area turning out to vote.

Treating democracy with contempt probably doesn’t help turn out. Our first past the post system is another issue, especially when neither of the two main parties differ significantly on a subject as significant as Brexit. Even so, it will be interesting to see what happens in the local elections.

Yesterday I had many constituents visit Parliament for a chat and a tour, and it was clear overall that they want us to get on and deliver a smooth and orderly Brexit as soon as possible, and I shared this with the Prime Minister when I met with her again yesterday evening.

Have you started keeping track of constituents Brexit correspondence properly yet? If you’ve not already seen it yet, quite a few of your constituents signed the petition to revoke article 50. It’s a pity you missed the debate.

The Public has rightly run out of patience with those MPs who simply wish to and choose to continue to delay, disrupt and then choose not deliver on their promises to the electorate. There is a plague on all our houses by these actions, and our democracy, one of the world’s greatest, will surely suffer as a result.

I would agree that people are entitled to be frustrated about the prime minister’s track record of unnecessary delay. She wasted a huge amount of time calling a snap election after triggering article 50. She only finally managed to agree a deal with the EU in November last year, which MPs were then not given the opportunity to vote on until months later. She keeps on delaying and running down the clock, which she started without an agreed plan even within her own cabinet.

Remind me which promises that were made in the referendum campaign will be delivered by Theresa May’s deal. What about in the event of no deal? Our democracy is suffering already and only a significant change in behaviour will begin to repair the huge damage that has been done.

That is why I will continue to work towards delivering on the EU Referendum Result, and help the Prime Minister to move our Country forward.

How? By voting to leave ‘on time’ regardless of the consequences? By refusing to compromise to get an alternative deal through parliament?

I know that some constituents have concerns over the current discussions between the Government and the Official Opposition, however, we do not choose the Leader of the Opposition.

My only concern is that they are just for show. The government should have been working across party lines since the beginning, and certainly since you lost a majority in the snap election.

I think it is right the Prime Minister works across Parliament to try to seek a consensus, but I do very sincerely like many others do find this hugely difficult due to the history and associations the Leader of Opposition has on record of being engaged with.

To be fair it must be difficult working with the prime minister given her history of broken promises.

Yet delivering on the outcome of vote cast by my constituents both in June 2016, as well as in the General Election in June 2017 is what this Government must do and can never stop trying in this and if we can find common ground it will be a welcome miracle!! But it may deliver again different challenges. We will see! GULP!

Those outcomes were a narrow majority to leave the EU, and your party losing its majority. The prime minister still seems to be having difficulty accepting either of those things.

But to conclude for this post- something brighter-There is hope and opportunity beyond leaving the EU and by Parliament delivering on the Referendum result – we have so much to gain!

Such as?

MPs must now chose to believe in a Global Britain in the way voters have entrusted their belief in us.

Good grief, we were Global Britain. Leaving the EU is not going to make us any more global, and leaving without meeting our international obligations will be incredibly damaging to our global standing.

If not, our democracy runs the risk of being damaged beyond repair. The stakes for all Parties are high – with the public now just seeing us as a whole delivering nothing but heightened divisions and ongoing damage.

The stakes are high but the biggest risk at the moment is a prime minister who is almost out of control.

It’s high time for this whole Parliament to do much better – as sincerely it is in the National interest.

I couldn’t agree more! It’s time for all MPs to step up.

Contempt of democracy


My MP. Mims Davies, recently emailed her latest Brexit update to Eastleigh constituents but if, like me, she didn’t send it to you, don’t worry; it didn’t say anything new. In fact, despite my response to her last update, it contains the same specious claims as before: control, borders, money, citizen rights, jobs, etc. I guess she didn’t read my letter.

It would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious, unfortunately it looks like Mims is going to carry on spreading the same misleading alternative facts as the prime minister until the bitter end. It’s this complete contempt for democracy that has got us in to the current mess and, whatever happens on the 29th March, it’s not going to end well.

Both leave voters and remain voters have legitimate concerns about democracy and respecting the referendum, and both are right to feel aggrieved because we have all been treated with utter contempt from the very beginning. Starting with David Cameron’s reasons for giving us a referendum.

If you think the EU referendum had anything to do with a genuine concern for what the country wanted, ask yourself why there wasn’t a referendum on something the country actually cared about before 2016. For example, austerity, or the NHS.

No, David just wanted to solve a problem he had with the Conservative party, and protecting the conservative party has featured just as strongly in the self inflicted crisis ever since then.

Having called for a show referendum it would have been nice if MPs had taken it seriously but unfortunately they proceeded to treat the whole thing with just as much contempt as the prime minister had. No need for a threshold on such a constitutionally significant question because it’s just advisory. That turned out well didn’t it.

Happily we don’t need to say too much about the actual referendum campaign, suffice to say it was universally awful.

And the result of trying to unite the Conservative party was a toxic narrow victory for leaving the EU, which looks like it has successful divided the country for a generation. It’s also worth noting the result is unsafe but since it was advisory, who cares?

Things looked bad, but even at this stage David could have built a sensible consensus on the way forward that truly respected the narrow win for leaving the EU. Dave? Dave?

Oh.

David Cameron outside number 10

Photo: Open Government Licence v3.0

Things really took a turn for the worse when Theresa-totalitarian tendencies-May moved in. Respect for democracy? Don’t make me laugh! From the outset, this was her chance to get rid of all those pesky foreigners that she’d been failing to keep out for her entire career.

Obviously triggering article 50 without a plan and calling a snap election makes perfect sense. Who wouldn’t give up their best (only?) leverage and waste a good chunk of the subsequent two year deadline just to lose your majority?

Having made these unforced errors, the contempt for democracy shifts up a gear. She hasn’t once behaved as if she lost her majority. In attempting to ram her own personal Brexit through, she has trampled over parliament at every opportunity. Mostly successfully to MP’s great shame.

Talking of shameful MPs, my MP is now essentially voting to leave the EU on 29th March with no deal. I would really love to know how she thinks this is in anyway a good thing for the UK or her Eastleigh constituency.

She still talks of 17.4 million people as if that number still exists, rather than being a fleeting coalition of people projecting their own vision of leaving onto the blank canvas of the leave campaign. What she’s actually doing is fuelling that belief that democracy is frozen in time in 2016 and must be respected at all costs, rather than being an ongoing process. It’s a dangerous illusion that will surely fail when people realise that none of the promises made in 2016 have been respected.

No one voted for the kind of Brexit that we’ll get if we leave the EU on the 29th March without honouring our international obligations.

Since MPs have so spectacularly failed to do their jobs over the last two years (obviously with some notable exceptions) it doesn’t seem unreasonable to go back to people with the options that are actually available.

Sadly Mims is not the only one to characterise a referendum on Theresa May’s own personal Brexit deal as a Second Referendum. Perhaps she’s confused because MPs have already had two chances to vote on the deal, but the rest of us haven’t even been given our first opportunity to provide our informed consent. In the unlikely event that the people voted to remain in the EU at this stage, how is that in any way disrespectful of the people in 2016? Or was the snap election disrespectful? It’s hard to keep up on what is democratic and what isn’t.

None of this is going end well, whether we eventually leave the EU or not. Thanks to a persistent pattern of contempt for democracy by a large number of people in the UK, including my MP, the mother of parliaments is not looking well. I fear that it’s almost too late to save her.

Brexit Update


My response to Eastleigh MP Mims Davies’ latest Brexit Update:

On the 15th January, the Withdrawal Agreement was put before the House of Commons.

Ideally it would have been put before the House of Commons last year but the Prime Minister wasted yet more time.

This Agreement would:

Respect the referendum taking back control of our laws, our money and our borders and allowing us to trade with our friends and allies around the world.

We already have control of our laws, our money, and our borders. We already trade with our friends and allies around the world. It doesn’t even respect the promises made in the referendum.

Safeguard our economy, with large local employers like GE Aviation and Prysmian supporting the deal.

Leaving with a withdrawal agreement is certainly better than the alternative however, despite the impact to local businesses like GE Aviation and Prysmian, you have stated that you would support a disorderly exit.

Offer a compromise around which we can begin to heal our political divisions.

This agreement is far from a compromise. Despite her historic defeat, the Prime Minister has still failed to genuinely reach out to other parties to form a consensus on the way forward, preferring to capitulate to the usual suspects in her own party. She continually manages to deepen political divisions, not heal them.

Retain close diplomatic links to the EU while paving the way for a new trade relationship with our closest neighbours.

If only the UK could agree on what new trade relationship we want. Ideally one that avoids a hard border.

And avoid both the dangers of No Deal or No Brexit.

Please explain the dangers of no Brexit.

Nonetheless, Parliament, primarily down to MPs looking to frustrate this process and stop us from leaving the EU altogether, voted this Deal down.

This is clearly false. Parliament has now voted for exactly the same deal with the exception of the Northern Irish backstop. So it looks more like MPs want to frustrate the agreed provisions to ensure no hard border in the event that a future relationship cannot be agreed.

This outcome helps no-one, gets us no further forward & means that the deadlock continues for communities, businesses & jobs.

Tonight’s vote gets us no further forward either. The Prime Minister has essentially voted against her own deal with the EU. With 59 days to go, we are just one step closer to a disorderly exit, which communities and businesses are ill-prepared for.

That’s why I am actively supporting our focus on key next steps in the House of Commons which must come together & work out a way forward for ALL as the 29th March closes in.

What are you actively doing? Who are you actively working with? It doesn’t seem to be enough based on this evening’s debate.

Over and above everything is that there is no reason why we couldn’t leave the EU on the 29th March, and I absolutely do not want to see a long, drawn out extension of Article 50, a view that I have shared with the Prime Minister.

You would barely have had enough time to pass all the necessary legislation if MPs had supported the withdrawal agreement but they haven’t.

For those who back no deal, I do understand this sentiment. Many have said that they feel that the UK should leave the EU on the 29th March on WTO rules.

Leaving without a withdrawal agreement is the only outcome that doesn’t require something to change. WTO rules only cover a fraction of what we will need to be in place for the country to continue operating in 59 days time.

However, as we continue to celebrate record high employment in the UK, with The Resolution Foundation saying:

“low-income households, disadvantaged groups and traditionally low employment urban areas are benefitting most from Britain’s jobs boom.”

As a Member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to listen to local employers large and small across our area – such as Southampton Airport who I visited last Friday, and Proteum who I visited the week before. Both have shown me that, while they are taking a pragmatic approach to Brexit, leaving the EU without a deal would affect LOCAL jobs.

It will. Leaving with a deal is also likely to affect local jobs but we won’t know for sure how until we have negotiated a future relationship with the EU.

Some have said that they feel people were not ‘informed’ ahead of the referendum, and that therefore their vote to leave should not count. To those people I say that every home in the country was sent a pamphlet by the Government making VERY clear what leaving the EU could mean, and regardless, 52.5% of those that voted in the referendum in Eastleigh, voted to leave the EU. The turnout in that election was one of the highest recorded in any election in our constituency at 78.2%.

There were plenty of issues with the 2016 referendum, which I am sure will be discussed at length for many years, but it would be risible to suggest that a majority of people eligible to vote then would have expected either the deal the Prime Minister negotiated, or the consequences of a disorderly exit.

Others have said that they feel that there should be a second referendum. The vast majority of those pushing this option would privately prefer that we never left the EU, and the so called ‘Peoples Vote’ campaign is nothing more than a disingenuous ploy to reverse the result of the referendum.

I reluctantly support a referendum on the final deal, for a few reasons:

  • The current deadlock in Parliament
  • The inability of MPs to function effectively with the dangerous idea of a unified ‘will of the people’ from the 2016 referendum hanging over them
  • The gulf between what was promised in 2016 and what is now on offer

It may even provide the much needed space to begin to heal the divide which threatens to rip the country apart.

I very publicly assure you that I will be campaigning to remain in the EU in the unlikely event that there is another referendum.

But very quickly, let’s look at the political alternatives.

Labour Continue to fail to present their own Brexit plan, with many of their MPs continuing to support remaining in the EU and, unlike Union Leaders, Party Leaders and leading MPs, the Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn continues to refuse a meeting with the Prime Minister.

It would be nice if more of their MPs supported the wishes of their membership, but the Prime Minister has not made any serious attempts to work with other parties on a real compromise.

Lib Dems Have made clear that they wish to use a Second Referendum to ignore the result of the referendum and reverse the decision of 17.4 million voted for.

Arguably you want to use the 2016 referendum to ignore the wishes of voters in 2019. Does the current Parliament get to bind future Parliaments in the same way?

UKIP Have demonstrated how their plan would have no regard for safeguarding jobs or our economy, nor heal our nations divisions.

No argument there, although I fear the Conservative party is closer to UKIP than ever before.

In contrast, I am absolutely committed to delivering on the result of the EU Referendum and ensuring that we leave the European Union in a smooth and orderly way – and getting on with it – and that will be my continued mission. I have made VERY clear that I would not support a long, drawn out extension to Article 50, and while I would prefer to avoid leaving on WTO rules, I would support this, over the extension of Article 50, which would just lead to even more uncertainty and frustrate this process even further.

Unfortunately this is the clearest indication yet of your reckless disregard for the damage a disorderly exit will inflict on Eastleigh and the UK. I sincerely hope you will reconsider in the next 59 days.

Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Bill


A

BILL

TO

Confer power on the strong and stable Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament indefinitely.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

  1. The Prime Minister may dissolve parliament.
    (1) Once Parliament dissolves, Her Majesty may not issue the proclamation summoning a new Parliament.
    (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 or any other enactment.
  2. Short title
    This Act may be cited as the Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Act 2018.

The Houses of Parliament, seen across Westminster Bridge

Photo By Adrian Pingstone

EXPLANATORY NOTES

What these notes do

These Explanatory Notes relate to the Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 13 June 2018 (Bill 132).

  • These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Department for Exiting Parliamentary Democracy in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament.

  • These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area.

  • These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill.

Overview of the Bill

  1. The Dissolution of Parliament (Permanent) Bill (“the Bill”) has a number of clauses which you do not need to concern yourself with. A summary of, and background to, the Bill is provided below.

  2. The Bill would give the strong and stable Prime Minister power to dissolve Parliament indefinitely.

Policy background

  1. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (section 1) provided for the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union to be put to a referendum. That referendum took place on 23 June 2016. A majority of those who voted in the referendum voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

  2. On 2 October 2016 the strong and stable Prime Minister announced that the Government would commence the formal process of leaving the European Union before the end of March 2017.

  3. The formal process of leaving the European Union was commenced on 29 March 2017.

  4. On 18 April 2017 the strong and stable Prime Minister announced her Government’s intention to hold a snap election to put a stop to the political gameplaying that was threatening the will of the people.

  5. On 8 June 2017 the people voted to twart the will of the people making the strong and stable Prime Minister’s job of delivering the will of the people, which she is very clear about, bloody difficult.

Legal background

  1. The procedure for withdrawing from the European Union is set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’). The first step in the procedure is for the Member State that has decided to withdraw to notify the European Council of its intention (Article 50(2)).

  2. In R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 the traitorous Supreme Court considered whether it would be inconsistent with the terms of the European Communities Act 1972 for the strong and stable Prime Minister to give notice to the European Union, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU Treaties, without a prior Act of Parliament. In an 8‐3 judgment the traitorous Supreme Court concluded that a prior Act of Parliament is required. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill was intended to provide the strong and stable Prime Minister with the necessary power to give notice of withdrawal under Article 50(2) however this is yet to be proved in court.

  3. The traitorous Supreme Court also considered arguments relating to the devolution acts and whether consent of the devolved administrations is required before notice to withdraw can be served. The unanimous decision of the court was that EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to the UK Government and Parliament and that the devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU.

Territorial extent and application

  1. This Bill extends, and applies in relation to, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  2. The Government does not care whether any provision gives rise to the need for a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Fast-track legislation

  1. The Government intends to ask Parliament to expedite the parliamentary progress of this Bill by voting in favour without any debate. It would be a terrible shame for the strong and stable Prime Minister to have to leak any of the emails she has intercepted over the course of her career. In their report on Fast‐track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, the Undemocratic House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution recommended that the Government should provide more information as to why a piece of legislation should be fast‐tracked but the Government is not interested in what the Undemocratic House of Lords recommends.

Commentary on provisions of Bill

Clause 1: Power to dissolve Parliament

  1. Clause 1(1) provides power for the strong and stable Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament

  2. Clause 1(2) provides that the powers in clause 1(1) are conferred regardless of any restrictions which may arise from any other legislation.

Clause 2: Short title

  1. Clause 2 confirms the intended short title of the Act.

Financial implications of the Bill

  1. By avoiding the high costs of running Parliament and elections, the Bill is expected to save £350m per week which we could spend on the NHS

Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights

  1. It is considered that the provisions of the Bill would allow the strong and stable Prime Minister to completely remove the Convention rights.

 

 

 

Trust in me. Trust in meeeeeee.


Rant alert. Look away now!

Trust me, I’ll take back control — but I’ll need your help

Teflon Theresa, zombie leader of the current UK zombie government, needs a bit of help. All that kicking cans down the road can take it out of a person. Putting off the inevitable is kind of understandable since she has zero chance of making anyone happy when we leave the EU, whether they voted for Brexit or cake.

So, how can we help?

Amid all the noisy debate and technical discussions about our departure from the European Union, I want to take this opportunity to remind the British public of my mission in the negotiations.

Now is not the time to get distracted by tiresome technical details like gravity. We’ve got plenty of time to worry about those in the next 10 years, 45 years, however many years it takes to sort out the mess I’m making of this.

Brexit provides the opportunity to build a new relationship with the EU where we are close trading partners and strong allies but with the British Government in control of our laws, our immigration policy and how taxpayers’ money is spent. It provides the opportunity to develop closer relationships with fast growing nations around the world. And in doing all this we will put the values that make us so great as a nation at the forefront: openness, tolerance, diversity and innovation.

Obviously not as close, or as strong. I don’t like other people telling me what do do. Once I’ve got rid of the ECJ, the ECHR, the Lords, those pesky MPs, and the judiciary, I’ll be able to decide exactly how to spend all the money. It won’t be on you, sorry.

Obviously I’m very open and tolerant of the right kind of people, but I will find diverse and innovative new ways to be hostile to everyone else.

You can trust me to deliver.

I triggered Article 50 exactly when I said I would, because I’m strong and stable. There will definitely not be any more elections.

I will ensure that we take back control of our borders. The public want their own Government to decide on the number of people coming into Britain from across the European Union and that is what we are going to do.

I’m very good at controlling borders, just not when it’s my actual job, or my responsibility, or when I’m running the government. I’ve been very clear that I will find someone to blame if anyone does manage to get into Britain from Europe. Except in Northern Ireland of course, where I get a bit confused about taking back control of borders.

I will ensure that we take back control of our money. We have agreed a settlement with the European Union and the days of vast contributions from taxpayers to the EU budget are coming to an end. So Brexit means there will be billions of pounds that we used to send to Brussels which we will now be able to spend on domestic priorities, including our National Health Service.

There is no magic money tree you know, and the magic money bus only delivers to people who keep me in power, so don’t get your hopes up. Boris told me to say that we could spend some money on the NHS but we’ve already made lots of other promises about maintaining EU funding with that money and spending it on the NHS would only encourage people to be lazy about staying healthy.

I will ensure that we take back control of our laws. So Brexit means that, while we may sometimes choose to take the same approach as the EU, our laws will be made in Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, with those laws tried by British judges.

I’ve been very clear that it’s not possible for me to break the law. I will just keep changing it until I get my way and, while we may sometimes choose to give the impression of an independent judiciary, our legal system will not be properly funded and judges will be accused of being the enemy of the people if they step out of line.

We will leave the Single Market because staying in the Single Market means continued free movement of people, but we will maintain the strongest possible trading partnership with our European neighbours and create new trade deals around the world ensuring that we seize the opportunities to build an economy that works for everyone.

Did I say everyone? I meant everyone with money in a tax haven. There might be a slight interruption in service as we attempt to renegotiate trade deals with countries that already have trade deals with the EU. I’m sure everyone will recognise the UK’s proud tradition of trade around the world and reward us with the trade deals we deserve.

We will get a fairer deal for our farmers and fishermen by leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, regaining control over access to our waters and safeguarding the interests of the UK fishing industry.

British fish will at last have British passports. And if the US can build a wall across a continent, we can easily build one to protect our territorial waters.

We will take back control of our social policy and our tax policy so rather than being decided in Brussels, we will decide them in the interests of ordinary working people in Britain.

I know I sometimes claim to care about the just about managing but I’m very proud of our country’s anti-social policy and rotten tax system. I hope you’ve been enjoying austerity because you haven’t seen anything yet.

And we will leave the Customs Union so we can establish our own independent trade policy and negotiate trade deals in our interests. I have proposed different options for a new customs arrangement with the EU and the government will continue to develop them during the negotiations.

We should have agreed on the kind of customs arrangements we wanted with the EU before triggering Article 50 but it turned out we couldn’t. We still can’t agree. We will continue to develop our proposals until enough people agree that we are never going to agree. Even if we could agree on one of the current innovative proposals, the EU has already told us that they don’t agree. All very agreeable I think you’ll agree.

I have three clear tests for the outcomes that we want to see.

Let me be clear.

First, as a proud unionist and Prime Minister of the whole United Kingdom I am clear that any deal with the EU must protect our precious union and also honour the agreements that were reached in the historic Northern Irish peace process. This means there can be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We will uphold the Belfast Agreement in full – and we will ensure the constitutional and economic integrity of the whole United Kingdom.

We’ll definitely be taking control of all the other borders, just not the one with Northern Ireland because that one turned out to be much trickier than anyone who didn’t care about peace realised. We’ll probably create a quantum border in the process. How innovative is that?

Second, any agreements must create as little friction as possible for trade to protect the jobs that rely on speedy and integrated supply chains. These are a valued part of our economy, particularly for our manufacturing regions.

And I care deeply about manufacturing and those regions that do that manufacturing where ever they are.

And third, we must not constrain our ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries around the world by being bound into a customs union as the Labour Party would have us. We must be a Global Britain that makes the most of the opportunity to create jobs and growth by trading ambitiously with partners across the world, old and new.

It would be much better to be entirely constrained by our own incompetence than admit that we could already be a Global Britain that makes the most of the opportunities that we already have.

I have put forward a plan to negotiate all these outcomes and to leave the European Union. Throughout this process I have tried to balance the legitimate concerns of those on both sides of the debate and I believe that our negotiating objectives answer those concerns.

I tried to balance the legitimate concerns of those on both sides of the debate but then I remembered that you lost and should have got over it by now. Traitors.

The path I am setting out is the path to deliver the Brexit people voted for. Of course, the details are incredibly complex and, as in any negotiation, there will have to be compromises. But if we stick to the task we will seize this once in a generation opportunity to build a stronger, fairer Britain that is respected around the world and confident and united at home.

You may have noticed that I’ve already made a few compromises along the way. Like the ministerial code for example. There will definitely be more. Whatever happens I will claim that we have delivered exactly the Brexit people voted for. I am the only one who can know the will of the people.

If we stick together and crush the saboteurs we will seize this once in my lifetime opportunity to create a totalitarian regime in the UK that is feared around the world and hostile at home.

I will need your help and support to get there. And in return, my pledge to you is simple: I will not let you down.

I will not let you down again. Strong and stable. Strong and stable.

Deploying Hyperledger Composer Playground to Bluemix


Since I’ve been deploying my own variations of Composer Playground to Bluemix recently, I thought it might be worth jotting down a few notes for anyone else who wants to do the same. For example, it might be useful to have your own known level of the Playground if you’re giving demos, to avoid any new functionality from the weekly releases causing surprises.

Assuming that you already have a working Composer development environment, a Bluemix account, and the Cloud Foundry CLI installed, here’s how…

First you need the main Composer repository if you don’t have it already

git clone https://github.com/hyperledger/composer.git

 

Next, checkout the code you want to deploy. In most cases you’ll want a release that’s been through one of our weekly release parties. I’ve picked the v0.14.2 release here

cd composer
git checkout -b v0.14.2-deploy v0.14.2

 

Get lerna to do its thing

lerna bootstrap

 

Now build the playground

cd packages/composer-playground
npm run build:prod

 

Create a manifest.yml file for your application with the following content

---
  command: node cli.js
  instances: 2
  memory: 128M
  env:
    COMPOSER_CONFIG: '{"webonly":true}'

 

Log in to Bluemix (you may need to use the –sso option)

cf login

 

Push the new app

cf push <APP_NAME>

 

Enjoy!