European Union

In all democracies, it’s essential that elections – including referendums – are run fairly, and that the regulatory authority has the power to annul an election or referendum if serious irregularities may have affected the result.

That’s not just my opinion. Such a requirement forms part of the Venice Commission’s ‘Code of Good Practice on Referendums’.

Although the code is voluntary and not legally binding, the UK is one of the 61 member states of the Commission and helped to form the Code, which was adopted in 2006. The Commission advised me:

“The Code was and is strongly supported by the Committee of Ministers recommending to the member States to respect its provisions.”

The Venice Commission is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, and the UK’s Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, currently sits on its Committee of Ministers.

Clause II 3. 3 e) of the Venice Code states:

‘The appeal body must have authority to annul the referendum where irregularities may have affected the outcome. It must be possible to annul the entire referendum or merely the results for one polling station or constituency. In the event of annulment of the global result, a new referendum must be called.’

In the UK, our Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body for elections and referendums, set up by Parliament to “regulate political finance in the UK” and to “promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity.”

I asked the Commission if they have the power to annul a referendum, in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Code.

They replied:

“In short, no we do not have the power to annul an election or referendum.”

If the Electoral Commission had the power to annul a referendum, then it’s unlikely that members of the public would now be needing to call on the High Court to declare the EU referendum “void” as a result of serious irregularities.

The Venice Commission’s Code states that a final appeal to a court must be possible.

The case of Susan Wilson & Others versus The Prime Minister is scheduled to move to a full hearing on 7 December.

The case will argue that Brexit must be declared void and the notification of Article 50 quashed because, “various criminal offences may have been committed”. 

Currently the National Crime Agency’s (NCA) is conducting an investigation into suspicions of “multiple” criminal offences committed by Aron Banks and the Leave.EU campaign that he founded.

Both Leave.eu, and the official Vote Leave campaign, have already been found guilty of breaking electoral law in the referendum.

The Independent reported this weekend that the government is expected to deploy Sir James Eadie QC – the star barrister who led the unsuccessful battle for the government to trigger Article 50 without parliament’s consent – in a sign of the case’s importance.

The lead litigant in the case against the Prime Minister, Susan Wilson, told me this evening:

“Since the outset, the behaviour of the Leave campaigns has undermined British democracy.

“Bad enough that they lied and misled the public on an industrial scale, but they added insult to injury by breaking electoral law.

“The Electoral Commission proved the scale of the misdeeds but have no power to act, so that task was left to members of the public like myself, who felt we had no choice but to act.

“The result of the referendum cannot be trusted and we will argue in court that it should be declared invalid.”

The Electoral Commission’s representative explained to me how the the current law is  time limited in so far as challenging the result of an election or referendum.

“The only way an election result can be challenged is if a petition is launched within 21 days to the Elections Petitions Office at the High Court. We include details in our guidance for candidates which you can see on this link (paragraph 1.10 onwards).

“With regards to the EU Referendum, the referendum result was likewise only subject to challenge by way of judicial review. Any challenge to the EU referendum result must have been brought before the end of six weeks beginning with the certification of the ballot papers counted and votes cast.

“This is set out in paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the European Union Referendum Act 2015.”

The spokesperson added:

“As you can see, these processes are set out in law. Any change to the law would be for the Cabinet Office to make. I should add that the UK’s Law Commissions’ made a series of recommendations in 2016 to modernise electoral law which we wholeheartedly support.

“One of their recommendations was to make it easier to challenge an election or referendum result. That would all require a change to the law. So again, you may want to contact the Cabinet Office.”

So, my next call was to the UK government’s Cabinet Office, which is a department of the Government “responsible for supporting the Prime Minister and Cabinet” and ensuring “the smooth running of government”.  In charge of the Cabinet Office is David Lidington, who was previously a Minister for Europe.

I shared the Venice Commission’s code with Mr Lidington’s office and reported back what the Electoral Commission had told me.

I queried why the Electoral Commission does not have the power to annul an election or referendum, as recommended in the Venice Commission’s code.

I also added that whilst the referendum result could only be challenged within six weeks of the referendum taking place:

“Only now are we discovering seriously irregularities in the conduct of certain parties in the EU referendum, long after the expiry of the six weeks.”

I put four questions to the Cabinet Office:

1. What is the government’s view about the Law Commissions’ recommendations, especially in regard to making it easier to challenge an election or referendum result?
2. If serious irregularities are discovered in a UK election or referendum, should it not be possible to challenge this beyond the current very short deadline?
3. Why doesn’t the UK follow the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice for Referendums, by allowing an appeal body (presumably the Electoral Commission in this case) to have the power to annul an election or referendum where “irregularities may have affected the outcome”?
4. Is the government planning any new legislation in this regard?

A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office replied:

“It would be helpful if you could let me know me what is the angle of your story? Are you making the case that the referendum should be annulled because of the Venice Commission’s Code?”

The spokesperson added:

“Your second question I think should be directed to lawyers, it’s not something we could answer.

“With regards to your third question, the Electoral Commission brought out their own report in the Referendum and said it was well run. If you want anymore on that I suggest you ask them.”

So, I went back to the Electoral Commission to ask them if it was still their view that the referendum “was well run” as claimed by the Cabinet Office?

The Electoral Commission responded:

“We published two reports on the EU Referendum. The first one – in September 2016 – focused on the administration of the poll. We reported that the administration of the poll was well-run and still stand by that view.”

The Commission spokesperson continued, however:

“We published a report on the regulation of the referendum in March 2017 and made recommendations to the UK Government about how there need to be improvements made to the rules ahead of any future poll.

“Obviously since the referendum we have concluded a number of investigations into EU campaigners and we continue to call for changes to the law that would make it easier to regulate any future poll.”

I went back to the Cabinet Office (on 13 November) with the following comments regarding their question as to whether my article would put the case for annulling the referendum:

“There are concerns about the conduct of the Referendum campaigns because evidence is emerging of alleged fraud, and criminal acts by Vote Leave, Cambridge Analytica, and Aggregate IQ: illegal overspending, psychologically profiling and targeting people with online ads, based on stolen data.

“This issue has become even more serious because the legal opinion of three barristers is now public on how Vote Leave, and its organiser Dominic Cummings, allegedly committed criminal offences.

“In addition, Leave.eu has been fined the maximum amount possible by the Electoral Commission for multiple breaches of electoral rules, and in addition fined by the Information Commissioner’s Office for serious breaches of data laws.

“Furthermore, suspicions about the source of millions of pounds loaned to Leave.eu by Arron Banks is now the subject of a criminal investigation by the National Crime Agency.

“However, I am not in a position to judge whether these irregularities in themselves were of such a magnitude as to have affected the result of the referendum.

“The point of my email to you, and of my article, was to enquire why it is in the UK that our Electoral Commission does not have the power, as specifically required in the Venice Code of Good Practice for Referendums, to annul an election or referendum result if it is deemed that such irregularities had affected the outcome.

“Are you able to provide an answer?

“I would of course, not expect the government to comment on such a contentious question as to whether the irregularities in the referendum were sufficient to have nullified the result.

“My question was more general: why is there no power by the regulatory authority to annul an election or referendum result if irregularities are discovered that could have affected the outcome? Lawyers may have an opinion on this, but it will depend on the current law, and the powers conferred onto the regulatory body.

“Which comes to my fourth question on what is the government’s view of the UK’s Law Commissions’ recommendations in 2016 to modernise electoral law, especially their recommendation to make it easier to challenge an election or referendum result?

“Does the government support these recommendations? Is the government planning any new legislation in response to the Commissions’ recommendations? If not, why not?

“I look forward to your reply.”

The next day (Wednesday 14 November) the Cabinet Office spokesperson replied:

“Apologies I’ve not been able to get a response today. I’m hoping to come back with a response first thing tomorrow.”

The next morning, Thursday 15 November, I received the following reply:

“An Act of Parliament is required before any UK-wide referendum can be held. There are thorough parliamentary procedures in place to ensure that any referendum legislation is scrutinised and debated.

“The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was scrutinised and debated in Parliament. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including the means by which a challenge of the referendum result could be brought.”

This seemed to be an entirely inadequate response to my questions to the government.

I asked the Venice Commission to comment, but they replied that they did not ‘have a mandate’ to comment on the situations in member states. I also asked how many of the Commission’s member states have an appeals body that has the authority to annul a referendum or election result in the case of serious irregularity? They plan to have this information available next year.

The Venice Commission (also known as the European Commission for Democracy through Law) is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law. The Council (which is not part of the European Union) was founded in 1949 to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe.

Although the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice on Referendums is a voluntary code only, it was set up for a reason and has been accepted by the Committee of Ministers where all member states, including the UK, sit.

In a ‘solemn’ declaration regarding the adoption of the Code in 2004 it was stated that the Committee of Ministers recognised, “the importance of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, which reflects the principles of Europe’s electoral heritage.”

On 27 November 2008, “the Committee of Ministers adopted a Declaration on the Code of Good Practice on Referendums for the purpose of inviting public authorities in the member states to be guided by the Code of Good Practice on Referendums.”

It’s becoming increasingly clear that there were serious and illegal irregularities in the EU referendum of 2016 that, over two years later, we are only now learning more about, with criminal investigations still ongoing.

The law as it currently stands does not provide an easy or effective way to challenge an election or referendum result. This is wrong.

The Venice Code of Good Practice, in point 3.3 on funding also states that:

“In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote may be annulled.”*

Leave.eu has been fined the maximum amount possible by the Electoral Commission for multiple breaches of electoral rules, including exceeding the cap on spending by a significant margin. These, I believe, are sufficient grounds to annul the referendum.

But also ongoing are criminal investigations as to the source of £8 million of funds that Arron Banks, the founder of Leave.eu, “loaned” to the campaign. The Electoral Commission suspect that these funds may have come from foreign sources, which would be illegal under UK law. This is currently the subject of a police investigation.

If proven, the case against the referendum being valid would be unassailable.

Commented Dr Ewan McGaughey, Senior Lecturer of Law at King’s College London:

“A fundamental principle of the common law is that votes can be declared void for substantial irregularity.”

He added:

“Most people voted for Brexit because they are honest: they believed promises and arguments about the EU’s democratic deficit or investing in the NHS. 

“It is clear that certain organisers of Brexit were prepared to say anything, do anything, with anyone’s support, to get the result. 

“We need to raise the integrity of public discourse, so this can never happen again.”

We await the verdict of the High Court.

But the bottom line? The referendum result is unsafe. We cannot possibly proceed to change our country forever based on such a dodgy ‘election’.

 

* Until last month, the English version of the Venice Commissions Code of Good Practice on Referendums stated that, “In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote MUST be annulled.” However, a review of the Code’s translation from the original French to English revealed that this was a mistranslation and the word “must” should have been “may”. Subsequently, a revised English version of the Code was published on 25 October 2018. The Commission has written to give reassurance that the use of the world ‘must’ in the following code is, however, correct: ‘‘The appeal body must have authority to annul the referendum where irregularities may have affected the outcome.”

 

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

The post EU referendum broke code of good practice appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Here’s the hypocrisy of Brexit. Brexiters reject the Brexit deal on offer. But Britain is not allowed to reject Brexit.

From the outset of the EU referendum back in 2016, Brexiters couldn’t agree with each other what kind of Brexit they wanted.

Nothing has changed.

There was no agreed plan, blueprint or manifesto for Brexit. And there still isn’t.

Theresa May’s Brexit plan looks set to be roundly rejected by Parliament early next month.

By all accounts, most Brexiters hate it. They want a different kind of Brexit altogether.

But here’s a question for all Leavers: what kind of Brexit did you actually vote for? The answer has to be that you didn’t vote for any kind of Brexit. No one defined what Brexit meant.

Leave was just one word, and the implications of it were never properly spelt out. Brexit didn’t mean Brexit. Leave didn’t mean leave. It was never detailed.

Now we have the detail of Brexit, or “a Brexit”, shocked Brexiters say that isn’t what they wanted. Indeed, the so-called plan doesn’t even include all the details: that’s to be decided over the coming years, when it will be too late.

Brexit politicians only have themselves to blame. Nobody was told what kind of Brexit they might get if they voted for Leave. And we still don’t know for sure.

Brexiters want an opportunity to choose a different kind of Brexit. But at the same time, they want to deny the country an opportunity to choose to reject Brexit altogether.

Like a broken record, Prime Minister Theresa May says there cannot be another vote on Brexit.

“The people were given a vote,” she says ad nauseam. “The people’s vote happened in 2016. And the people voted to leave.”

• But the people didn’t vote for an almighty, calamitous mess, Mrs May.
• The people didn’t vote to have vital foods and medicines in short supply.
• The people didn’t vote to be poorer.
• The people didn’t vote to trash our economy – which before the referendum was the fastest growing in the G7 (now it’s the slowest).
• The people didn’t vote to put at risk peace in Northern Ireland.
• The people didn’t vote for utter uncertainty and chaos, just weeks before we are due to leave.

Now, the evidence is overwhelming that a majority of the UK public not only don’t want the Prime Minister’s Brexit.

They don’t want any Brexit at all.

On 15 November, just one day after the Cabinet “approved” Theresa May’s Brexit deal (although resignations followed later) YouGov sampled the GB population.

The results were that 47% said it’s wrong for Britain to leave the EU, 40% said it’s right to leave, and 13% didn’t know.

The figures have been analysed by Adrian Low, Emeritus Professor of Computing Education at Staffordshire University. He told me:

“If you take out the ‘don’t knows’, add Northern Ireland’s preferences and re-weight the data using the original referendum results, that adds about 4% to the remain majority.

“So, the majority of the UK as a whole (which of course, includes Gibraltar as they were included in the original referendum), it shows that now around 55% want the UK to remain in the EU, and only 44% want to leave.

“That’s a margin of about 11% for Remain. This figure has been growing since last year’s general election.”

Consequently, Professor Low wrote last week to all 650 Members of Parliament to advise them as follows:

________________________

Dear Member of Parliament

More than 50 polls, from a range of different polling companies (YouGov/BMG/Survation/National Centre for Social Research) have sampled Brexit opinion since the 2017 general election.

The results have been consistent and show a clear trend.

[ ∞ Link to graphs and data]

Since the general election, 98% of the polls have shown that the UK public no longer want to leave the European Union.

Two and a half years on since the referendum the majority has moved from 3.8% in favour of leave to between 8% and 12% in favour of remaining in the EU.

A single polling result has, typically, a potential 3% error, but when 50 out of 51 polls from different sources, agree, it is difficult to refute this new ‘will of the people’.

Statistically, the reasons for the changes are, almost certainly:

1. Over half a million older voters who voted 75%:25% in favour of leave, have died.
2. 700,000 new 18-20 year-olds are now able to vote. They have a 67%:33% preference to remain.
3. About 5% of remain voters accepted the democratic decision and 5% now undecided, but 90% still want to remain in the EU.
4. A lower percentage (80%) of leave voters still want to leave, but 20% have changed their minds.
5. Of the 12.9 million who did not vote, there is now a 2:1 majority in favour of remaining.

It seems to me important that you should know these figures, given the decisions you will be making in the near future.

As David Davis said, ‘If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy’, and there has been a substantial change of mind swing from the referendum of between 12% and 16% in the direction of remaining in the EU.

We have attempted to illustrate how a three-way ‘Peoples’ vote’ might be conducted at www.ThePeoplesVote.eu.

This does seem a very simple way to conduct a three-way vote and provides a way forward for dealing with the change of will in a democratic and stable manner that should appeal to much of the population.

Best wishes to you over the coming politically turbulent time.

Adrian Low

________________________

If, as now seems close to certain, Parliament rejects Theresa May’s version of Brexit, then the case will be overwhelming to put the decision back to us, ‘the people’, who the Prime Minister so often refers to.

If Mrs May is really interested in acting on the ‘will of the people’ she will surely want to find out what that will is today, over two years after ‘the people’ were last asked.

Now we know what Brexit means, we need a new vote on that, for the very first time.

And if the country votes to reject it, and to remain in the EU, it will mean that’s the new ‘will of the people’.

After all, if Brexit is rejected in a new poll, it will mean that sufficient numbers of Leave voters have changed their minds since the 2016 referendum.

So, Mrs May, you shouldn’t worry that you’d be going against what ‘the people’ wanted two years ago, if they don’t want it any more.

Indeed, if you go ahead with Brexit when the country doesn’t want it, you will be going against the ‘people’s will’.

And you wouldn’t want to do that, would you?

 

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook.

The post The hypocrisy of Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

DRAFT REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Committee on Development
Pier Antonio Panzeri, Cristian Dan Preda, Frank Engel, Charles Goerens

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Report on Common Foreign and Security Policy
Opinion Morocco Agreement
Opinion Morocco accompanying resolution
Opinion European Instrument for Nuclear Safety
Report on Strategic Partnership Agreement Japan - consent
Report on Strategic Partnership Agreement Japan - resolution
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the Union of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Singapore, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Antonio López-Istúriz White

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

OPINION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anders Primdahl Vistisen

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

OPINION on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Anders Primdahl Vistisen

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 185'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Saleh Thabet v Council
External relations
The General Court upholds the Council’s decision to freeze the assets of members of the Mubarak family, on the basis of judicial proceedings relating to misappropriation of Egyptian State funds

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Length of video : 216'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.4Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

“That way”

It’s obviously alma mater time for me, as I find myself giving a talk today at LSE on Brexit, just a few days after being back in Bruges. As is usual, I will be blaming any shortcomings on my education.

The LSE talk aims to consider how Brexit plays out and I thought it’s useful to share the general ideas with you here now.

The starting point is that Brexit is a highly unusual event, in comparative political terms. Technically, it’s a withdrawal from an International Governmental Organisation, but with a scale and impact that far exceeds any other instance (remember all that hubbub about the UK leaving UNESCO in 1985? Exactly).

But it’s not like a secession: there’s no monopoly of force issue, nor a heightened chance of armed conflict.

It’s also not like a break-up of an empire, either territorial or colonial; there’s no coercive element and it remains a one-off event.

All of which is to say that the lack of useful points of comparison make it hard to judge quite where this is all going.

Some dynamics

With that in mind, we have to fall back on what we can see happening in practice, to work out if it indicates paths of likely development.

Perhaps the most glaring aspect – for me, at least – is the hardy perennial of this blog: the lack of a strategic direction. If you don’t know what you’re trying to achieve, it’s particularly hard to work out how to achieve it, or even to know if you can or have achieved it.

The focus here is very much on the UK, since the entire process rests on the country’s decision to withdrawal, which the EU has no choice but to accept, given the formulation of Article 50.

That Article, as we’ve heard many times, was written with the assumptions that a) it wouldn’t be used and, b) anyone actually using it would only do so after very careful consideration.

Oops.

The entire period since 23 June 2016 can be characterised as a political system trying to work out why it’s enacting the decision it was handed by the referendum, and what kind of place it wants the UK to become.

The failure to do that reflects on the fracturing of power and mutual-reinforcing blocks that each interest has over the others. No one is strong enough to impose a dominant narrative, but no one is weak enough not to matter.

Not unreasonably, that lack of direction points to a second key feature, namely the efforts to keep change to a minimum.

At each step so far, the government preference has been to avoid making big changes, especially in the short-run. Hence sticking with Article 50 itself, then pushing for a transition period, all the while talking up the desire to keep as comprehensive as possible a future relationship.

The big exception in all this is free movement of people, which has been the most durable of May’s policy preferences. But every around that is intended to stay as close as possible to the current arrangements under membership. Which is to say not very close.

The second consequence of lacking direction has been the willingness to break up the steps of decision-making.

The Article 50 process now reaching its conclusion is not ‘Brexit’; possibly not even close. Yes, it manages the end of UK membership, but the focus of the Withdrawal Agreement is about closing-off past liabilities, rather than setting out the agreed plan for the future.

Anyone who thinks this has dragged on long enough will be in for a rude awakening when they wake up on 30 March next year and find – whatever happens now – that they are still a very long way from the new stable end-state of UK-EU relations.

Finally, the vacillations of the UK over what to do have also contributed to the lack of trust in the negotiations.

That’s most evident with the backstop debate: profound Irish concern about whether any UK government might keep its word on any aspect of maintaining the Good Friday arrangements led very directly to the push for legally-binding commitments, just in case. It’s also why provisions for citizens (and for finances) are in the Withdrawal Agreement, while there’s the best opportunity to avoid future uncertainty.

So where then?

If we take those as our starting points, then three scenarios suggest themselves. As to their likelihood, I’ll say that the first strikes me as much more likely than the other two right now.

That first pathway is muddling-through.

We’ve had repeated moments of crisis in British politics around Brexit, with people resigning and confusion and all the rest.

But in each of those moments, the outcome has been essentially one of sticking with the programme. You saw it in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, after the 2017 general election, after the December 2017 Joint Report, after Chequers.

The commonality was simply that while there was extensive and profound unhappiness with the programme, there was no clear alternative consensus that people had rallied to.

Paradoxically, because May’s plans have been challenged from all sides, that has made it harder to build a single pole of opposition.

With that in mind, we might expect that – somehow – May gets the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, the UK leaves the EU next March, then has another crisis as everyone realises they can fight over owning the UK agenda for the future relationship talks, which then drag on to the end of transition, in time for another couple of crises about signing and ratifying that text.

I’ll accept two criticisms of this: firstly, I really don’t understand how May finds that majority now in Parliament, and; secondly, it all sounds a bit self-serving, given my work as a commentator (contact info in the sidebar).

So let’s think about the other possibilities.

One is the ‘Moment of madness’ model.

Essentially, this everyone in Westminster pretending they’re Bobby Ewing and it was all a dream (kids, ask your parents) and stopping the process of leaving the EU. Others can offer you models of how this could happen.

I find this very unlikely, for all that I’ve already said here. There are already so many sunk costs following the referendum, and so many who have staked their political futures on working with that decision, that it seems improbably even at the political level, quite apart from the popular one.

To be clear, this option contains costs, despite what some claim: the past two and a half years can’t be swept under a carpet, with the hope no one brings it up again.

Most importantly, it raises even more questions about the role of politics and politicians than the first scenario.

Which opens up a more troubling third model: Rupture.

The distinct failure of the political class (as I’ll style them here) to manage the ‘simple’ decision contained in the referendum does nothing for a system where disengagement and disillusionment are already rife.

The complexities of any negotiated deal, the difficulty of not making compromises on positions and the continued feeling of uncertainty about this thing that people might not fully understand, but know is important, all open up an opportunity for a new populist agenda.

“How difficult can it be? Well actually, it’s dead simple” would be the general refrain of some charismatic individual, promising to sweep all this old politics away and do things right.

I’m hazy on how they suggest doing that, but I’ll say for sure that it involves a really simple solution.

(pro tip: complex situations never have simple solutions).

But really, where?

None of this is set in stone, or even in a much softer material, for the opening comments: this is not like anything that’s come before it.

Most important then has to remain the message that there are choices to be made and if you don’t make them, then others will.

The post How’s this all going to end? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 217'
You may manually download this video in WMV (2.5Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

The next AFET meetings are scheduled to take place on:

Wednesday, 21 November 2018, Brussels, 09:00-13:00, JAN 2Q2
Wednesday, 21 November 2018, Brussels, 14:30-18:30, JAN 2Q2
Thursday, 22 November 2018, Brussels, 09:00-12:30, JAN 2Q2
Monday, 26 November 2018, Brussels, 16:30-18:00, ASP 1G2

Further information
Information for visitors
Draft agendas
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Novartis Farma
Approximation of laws
The reimbursement by a national healthcare insurance system of a medicinal product for a use not covered by its marketing authorisation (off-label use) is not contrary to EU law

Associação Peço a Palavra and Others
Freedom of establishment
Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona proposes that the Court of Justice declare that the requirements of the Portuguese Government in relation to the reprivatisation of TAP constitute a justified restriction on the freedom of establishment, with the exception of the obligation to maintain and develop the national hub

Length of video : 167'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.4Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2018 - EP

Like an irritating parrot, the Prime Minister Theresa May keeps repeating that she’s delivering the ‘people’s will’ and ‘there won’t be a people’s vote’.

The two phrases are incompatible. They oppose each other.

The irritating parrot may as well say, “Welcome to my home” and “Get out of my house”. Or, “I believe in democracy” and “Shut up! You’re not allowed another say.”

Theresa May may be described as a tough bird, but as far as facing up to us, the people, she’s a chicken.

She daren’t ask us what we now think about Brexit, because she knows the likely answer will be, “Get stuffed. We don’t want Brexit.”

Nobody knew what Brexit meant in the referendum, and in that referendum Mrs May herself advised the country that staying in the EU was in our best interests.

Parrot or chicken, she’s got some neck.

• Telling us on the one side of June 2016 that Brexit will harm the country, our trade, our economy, our security and the cohesion of the United Kingdom.
• Then on the other side of June 2016, telling us that she’s the one who’ll deliver all the things she told the country not to do.

Ever since then she’s been squawking what Brexit means. It means Brexit. It’s red white and blue. But her phrases meant nothing to no one. It was for the birds.

But now, over two years after that fateful day on 23 June 2016, Mrs May has delivered over 500 pages of what Brexit means (or at least, what the divorce settlement means – we still don’t know what our future relationship with Europe will mean).

And what do you know? Nobody wants it. Remainers don’t want it. Brexiters don’t want it.

Several of her Brexit ministers, their feathers ruffled by a Brexit that was not in their image, have flown the nest.

They’re now roosting in a furtive corner, plotting ways to oust Mrs May and re-arrange the pecking order of the government.

The rest of the government are in a flap, running around like headless chickens. They’re hoping to get their Brexit plan through on a wing and a prayer.

Of course, it’s doomed. Brexit is one big bad egg.

Last Thursday, Mrs May went to the House of Commons to explain her recipe for Brexit. But she was in for a roasting. MP after MP stood up to say they didn’t want it. Her Brexit plan, they said, was as dead as a dodo.

Oh yes, Mrs May certainly looked as sick as a parrot.

But she was defiant too. She’d see Brexit through. She was delivering the will of the people. And no, you can’t have a people’s vote. Parrot, parrot, parrot.

Ever since Mrs May started on the road to Brexit (a road she previously told us not to travel) she has wanted to thwart democracy.

No, Parliament couldn’t have a say on triggering Article 50, she said. The decision was made by the referendum.

But she lost that argument in the courts.

Both the High and Supreme Courts confirmed that the referendum was advisory only. Only Parliament has sovereignty in the UK, the courts ruled, and Parliament must have the final say.

Last year, when the government produced impact assessments on Brexit, Mrs May and her government refused to reveal what they were. Parliament had to force the government to reveal them.

And it’s been the same this week.

Mrs May’s government didn’t want to show Parliamentarians the government’s detailed assessments of her Brexit plan, agreed last week with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier.

Jo Johnson, a transport minister in Mrs May’s government, who resigned last week because he couldn’t support that plan, has turned out to be quite a wise owl.

During the Commons debate on this issue last night he said:

“If we have learned anything from the chaos of the past 30 months, it is that facts are sacred. This debate has been characterised by falsehoods and misinformation from day one.

“It is extraordinary that we have now had to force the Government, at this relatively late stage, to publish the vital information necessary for an informed public debate. Some may say that this horse has long bolted, but I say it is better late than never.”

That’s a feather in your cap, Mr Johnson (Jo, not Boris).

Today, Mrs May lost yet another attempt to thwart democracy and justice.

The Supreme Court ruled against a government attempt to stop the European Court of Justice from ruling on whether the Article 50 notice could be unilaterally revoked by the UK.

A cross-party group of MPs, MEPs and MSPs, along with Jolyon Maugham QC, the director of the Good Law Project, had asked the Scottish courts to rule that the case should be referred to the European court in Luxembourg for an urgent ruling.

So, despite Mrs May’s attempt to stop the course of justice, the European Court of Justice will now hear the case on 27 November.

At every awkward step of Theresa May towards her cloud-cuckoo Brexit, she has tried to circumvent both democracy and justice.

To pass Brexit, she has attempted to bypass Parliament, and spent millions of pounds of our money on legal fees in what turned out to be a futile, and time consuming, journey through the courts.

To pretend that her Brexit was democratic, she has had to keep referring to ‘the will of the people’:

• despite the fact that the referendum is now over two years old;
• despite the fact that the win for Leave was wafer thin;
• despite the fact that Leave only won with a pack of lies;
• despite the fact that only a minority of registered voters voted for Leave (just 37%);
• despite the fact that the referendum has now been entirely discredited, with irregularities so serious that the referendum result cannot be considered safe,
• and, despite the fact that poll after poll now show that most people in the country want another vote on Brexit, and that in a new vote, Remain would win.

So, it’s clear that Brexit is not now the ‘will of the people’ (and probably never was – nobody really knew what it meant).

Mrs May thinks that those who are calling for a new vote are ‘the enemies of democracy’. But this is what psychologists call ‘projection’.

Psychological projection involves someone denying the existence of bad qualities in themselves while attributing them to others. (For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.)

This is what Mrs May is doing every day. She is attempting to project on to us her crimes, so that we are blamed.

But it is her that is guilty. She is the enemy of democracy. She is the enemy of justice. She is the enemy of the people.

Her Brexit plan is bird-brained. Both Brexiters and Remainers want to kick it into the dust. The chances of it getting through Parliament are close to zero. It’s a dead duck.

Brexit is out of control. The Prime Minister can’t fix it. Parliament can’t fix it.

It’s time for us, the people, to come to the rescue. Ask us. Find out what is today’s will of the people, then act on that. Don’t chicken out.

 

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• Follow my Stop Brexit campaign on Facebook: Reasons2Remain

________________________________________________________

• Join and share the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post Theresa May is the enemy of democracy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.