Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 657

Warning: file_get_contents(http://grant-adamson.me.uk/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/admin/inc/webfonts.json) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 657

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /homepages/12/d83843876/htdocs/newlife/wp-content/themes/supernova-pro/lib/functions/supernova-query.php on line 678
Categories

Wordblog revived

incorporating New Life

Brexit’

Will HP Sauce cost MPs more after Brexit?

Traditional bottle with its image of the Houses of Parliament.

We have heard about the impact of Brexit on Marmite and Guiness, but there has been a strange silence about HP sauce. It got the name in 1895 after the inventor, a Nottingham grocer called Frederick Gibson Garton, heard his sauce was being served in a Palace of Westminster restaurant.

In the 1960s the association was strengthened after Mary Wilson, wife of the prime minister, told the Sunday Times: “If Harold has a fault, it is that he will drown everything with HP Sauce.” (source: Wikipedia)

At that time it was certainly available in the parliamentary eating places. I went with Bill Price, the MP for Rugby and later one of Wilson’s ministers, to get something to eat there.

Bill ordered two rolls overflowing with grated cheese, grabbed a bottle of HP sauce, opened up the rolls and poured what looked like half the bottle into them. For years after I could not eat HP sauce.

Certainly Bill was a man of unusual habits. Before becoming an MP he had been a reporter for the Birmingham Post in Leamington Spa where he was best remembered for breeding show mice in the office. Not long after he was elected I joined the Post: the person who showed me my office pointed out where Bill had kept his mice.

But that is digressing. For nearly a century HP sauce was owned and made in the English midlands.  In 1988 it was sold to a French business which in 2005 passed the sauce to Heinz which quickly moved production to a factory in the Netherlands.

Marmite owner Unilever, blamed the impact of the reduced value of the pound following the referendum for increased raw material costs, when it tried to negotiate higher prices with Tesco. Guinness is worried about the impact Brexit on border crossings between the Irish republic and Northern Ireland (Irish Times).  But I have heard nothing about the  impact on HP Sauce. Perhaps it could be exempted from import tariffs if Brexit is hard.

 

 

Article 50 notice can be revoked, says EU

Michel Barnier,

Michel Barnier, Chief EU negotiator.

A new European Union website devoted to Article 50 negotiations makes it clear that there is a way in which the Brexit notice could be revoked.

The UK cannot unilaterally withdraw the letter sent by Theresa May, but it could ask the EU to agree to revoke the notice.

The new Article 50 taskforce website (part of a larger new site) has a Q&A page including this:

Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?

It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification.

In other words, the UK cannot simply say, “Oops! We made a made a mistake. We didn’t mean it. We are staying in the UK.” But the UK could say, “It has become clear that leaving the UK is not good for our country, not is it good for the other 27 members of the UK. It would be best for everyone in we could withdraw out Article 50 notice and find a way to work together to our mutual benefit.”

Obviously, that is not an option that Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator, can put forward, but several leading people in the EU including Guy Verhofstadt, lead negotiator for the European Parliament, have suggested that one day the UK would rejoin. Verhofstadt wrote in the New Statesman:

I am also sure that – one day or another – there will be a young man or woman who will try again, who will lead Britain into the European family once again. A young generation that will see Brexit for what it really is: a catfight in the Conservative party that got out of hand, a loss of time, a waste of energy, a stupidity.

That process of rejoining would be long and painful. But as the disadvantages of leaving will become clear during the coming 18 months of negotiation. The failure of the Leave campaign to deliver it promises, the loss of jobs, reducing wealth, the threat to the United Kingdom, difficulty of forging new relationships outside the common market, the loss of influence in the word and the need for Europe to hang together in an unpredictable world will all become clearer.

Far better to swallow pride before we are outside the tent.

Why are Brexit fundamentalists afraid?

Fundamentalist Brexiteers are afraid. They will likely say they are not afraid. If this is true why are they,

  • fighting against an assessment of the consequences of leaving the EU with no deal, 
  • using the rhetoric of war about the future status of Gibraltar, and
  • making a huge fuss about the colour of the cover of passports?

Theresa May has said No Deal would be better than a Bad Deal. She has now softened her language to say she will get a good deal. Either way is is just basic risk assessment to evaluate the effects of all possible outcomes.

It was obvious all along that Spain would be concerned about the status of Gibraltar after the UK leaves the EU. Echoing Mrs Thather’s resolve over the Falklands can only be seen as inflaming things before talks even begin.

As for passports, who really cares about the colour although I might be a little embarrassed if I had to carry pink passport with baby blue polka dots.

Six Brexit supporting MPs on the 21 member all-party committee on exiting the EU voted against its report on hearings which included David Davis, the man responsible for negotiations with the EU, saying there had been no assessment of “no deal” since before the referendum.

The committee chairman, Hilary Benn, said:

Without an economic impact assessment of ‘no deal’ and without evidence that steps are being taken to mitigate the damaging effect of such an outcome, the Government’s assertion that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is unsubstantiated. Parliament must be in an informed position to decide whether a proposed deal is, in fact, better or worse than no deal.

To  oppose this argument suggests fear of the result. To many it looks like irresponsibility.

It does look as if the fundamentalist Brexiteers, are fearful they are losing the argument before negotiations start.

Total irresponsibility of ex-Tory leader invoking Falklands war before Brexit talks even start

Guardian headline


There is only  one way to describe Michael Howard’s performance on the BBC’s Sunday Politics  as reported by the Guardian (headline above): “Complete irresponsibility”. It looks as if he is working to ensure the hardest of hard Brexits, showing a total disregard for the future of the country. He is undermining what ever attempts Theresa May will make to get a “good deal” before she has even started.

If we are stand any chance of salvaging any from the disaster of the referendum vote moderate language and good manners are important.

Brexit or Not: A drama in IV acts

Timothy Garton-Ash, academic and journalist, is one of the most acute observers of European politics. But I hope his predications for the outcome of Brexit negotiations are too pessimistic.

He sees a story in four acts. Act I was the referendum, Act II the period up to the triggering of Article 50, We are now at the start of Act III which will conclude in two years when the UK formally leaves the EU. Act IV is the period after that when the UK is in a transitional stage seeking a long-term agreement. Act V is facing up to the consequences of leaving the EU

This is set out in a Guardian article (do read it in full) saying, rightly ,”it takes time to burst the populist bubble”. He writes:

Here is where the five-act timetable comes in. The parliamentary vote on the interim result of the negotiation in autumn 2018 will be an important moment, but it currently seems unlikely that public opinion will have swung so decisively that a parliamentary majority, including Labour MPs with heavily pro-Brexit constituencies, would actually vote to send May back to Brussels with a flea in her ear, buzzing at her to get a better deal. It’s even more unlikely that it would vote for the second referendum proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

He may well be right, but I am clinging on to the, for me, optimistic belief that public opinion will swing well before the 2020 general election. That by around September next year when the future arrangements are becoming clear, public opinion will have swung and parliament will not accept anything other than conditions fundamentally similar to EU membership or, even continued membership.

We are already seeing financial businesses, games companies and others moving jobs to Europe. Manufacturing companies will have, by September next year, a clearer picture of the what if any tariffs they will face and the impact on supply chains. All business have to make long-term plans and their arrangements must be made before Garton-Ash’s Act IV.

At the same time the Health Service and employers in most sectors of the economy will see continued loss of skilled staff unless the prospects for life and work in the UK look good.

The crucial question in 18 months time will be whether the framework for a deal to be settled in a transitional period is good enough to satisfy most of the public and enough MPs to give Mrs May her majority. I think it unlikely that she would go to the house with no deal – that would inevitably mean being sent back to negotiate again unless the EU was so fed up with whole process it says, “enough”.

We should not worry too much about whether the Commons is given a vote. If it really wants one it will get it: the alternative would be a motion of “no confidence”.

An alternative at this stage would to revoke the Article 50 notice (my preferred outcome). The legal discussion about this option would become meaningless: it would be a political issue. We might be lucky and the EU would agree that membership continued although there would be a severe loss of influence and, probably, the rebate.

To continue beyond this stage, into Act IV, without a clear picture of what would emerge at then end of a  transition period would only result in continued uncertainty and a draining away of global confidence in the UK, or what would be left of it.

 

 

Time to start fighting to withdraw May’s Article 50 letter

A Guardian headline this morning, “Believe it or not, Nigel Farage can now be an inspiration for remainers” is intended to provoke. It is not that but Johathan Freedland’s opinion piece under it that makes me angry.

He writes:

Why shouldn’t remainers draw inspiration from those who refused to accept the 1975 referendum ratifying Britain’s entry into the European club and agitated tirelessly for a second vote? Surely the dogged persistence of a Nigel Farage, Bill Cash or John Redwood is a model for the 48% to follow.

My 75th birthday was six days ago. I don’t have the time to play such a long game.

Freedland continues:

…that still leaves the possibility of an even harder Brexit – and pro-Europeans’ task now is to resist it. Admitting that several rooms are on fire doesn’t free you from the obligation to stop the entire house burning to the ground.

In practice, that means limiting the damage. It could mean arguing for greater access to European markets, even if that entails some jurisdiction by the European court of justice. Or urging new immigration rules that don’t seal up the border to all outsiders.

He completely ignores the possibility that many, including myself are fighting for – revocation of the Article 50 notice. It would be messy, nasty but we have a democracy where people have the freedom and right to change their mind.

The argument that the deed is done and there is no turning back has no strong basis. Yes the British Government and those seeking a Commons vote during the Supreme Court hearing assumed an Article 50 could not be withdrawn.

It is only the European Court that can decide whether or not that is true. A case seeking to clarify this is underway in Dublin.

The man who drafted the clause, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, believes it [revocation] is possible. Sky news reported:

Lord Kerr said: “You can withdraw the notification (Article 50) that she (Theresa May) is going to submit in March.

“Legally it would be perfectly possible to take it back.

“Politically of course, our partners might not be too thrilled if they’d wasted 18 months, 20 months negotiating with us, but I suspect it would be possible to get political agreement where you carry on as before.

“That looks at present an extremely unlikely contingency, but it is there as a possibility.”

As he points out it would become a political rather than a legal question.

Matt Kelly, editor of the European,  The New European this week speaks for me when he writes:

If people start losing their jobs, their homes, if food prices soar, if the quick trade deals they promised us fail to materialise, the will of the people may change.

And when (no need for ifs on this one) the real cracks start to show in political parties as riven by conflict over Europe today as they have even been, the charade that prompted this whole debacle will be daylight clear, and the will of the people may change.

And if the will of the people changes, it will find a way – as it always does – to be heard.

The how of a reversal is harder to define just now. But obstructing that will of the people would be nothing short of anti-democratic.

Article 50 is, definitely, NOT irreversible. Donald Tusk says so. Lord Kerr, who wrote the article, says so. The price of a reversal will be a political one. We believe that’s fair. It’s politics that got us into this mess, and if politics has taught us anything in the last twelve months, it’s this: Nobody knows anything.

Stay angry. Fight Brexit.

I am angry. It is urgent as I don’t want to fight to my dying day, which seems to be what Johnathan Freedland advocates. It is about the British Isles being a place fit for future generations.

 

Why has no one asked David Davis to ensure free movement for ferrets?

Ferret

A European ferret. Source: Wikipedia. © Creative Commons Alfredo Gutiérrez

The detail to be covered in Brexit negotiations is the stuff of nightmares. But sometime an MP,  is bound to table a Commons question, at the behest of constituents, on the free movement of ferrets.

Every year some 250,000 pets cross the Channel under an EU agreement. I have been unable to locate statistics showing how many of them were ferrets but most were dogs and cats.

Originally ferrets were excluded from the Pet Passport scheme but after a lot of squealing by ferret lovers in England the European Parliament voted in 2003 to extend the rules.

According to the Daily Mail in 2003: ‘The new law will make it easier for British male ferrets to meet French female ferrets,’ an EU spokesman said.

According to Politico.eu the EU chief negotiator for Brexit, Michel Barnier, is aware that Pet Passports is one of the issues that will have to be settled. There is no evidence that even he is aware of the effect on ferrets.

But we don’t even know if David Davis is aware of the issue. When he gets down to details of Brexit I just hope he does a reverse ferret.

 

Swift reactions suggest Article 50 letter was not given enough thought

Annotated letter

What TM wrote and what she means. Politico.eu has its interpretation.

That Theresa May’s Article 50 letter has been so quickly seen as a threat over European security co-operation suggests the drafting may have been hurried and not subjected to sufficiently rigorous checking in Downing Street. The alternative – that it was a deliberate threat – is worse.

The point was picked up immediately by LibDem leader Tim Farron who said Theresa May has delivered a “blatant threat” to the EU 27 by threatening to withdraw security co-operation if we do not receive a favourable trade deal.

Others in the UK and across Europe followed with similar comments.

Politico.eu has produced an annotated version of the letter and had this to say on the security issue:

WHAT SHE SAID:
“In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.”

WHAT SHE MEANT:
If you want access to our superior intelligence on international crime and terrorism you’d better do us a deal on the stuff we want too. Just think about that.

Reactions to other parts of the letter were also swift. The Independent reports:

Angela Merkel has dealt an instant blow to Theresa May’s plan for Brexit by rejecting the PM’s plan for trade talks to take place at the same time as Article 50 secession negotiations.

Britain will be put into the slow lane for discussions about any future trade deal with the EU following an intervention by the German Chancellor, who intervened just hours after the UK invoked Article 50.

Was all this what Downing Street expected and wanted from the letter or is it a mark of poor drafting and hurry. They have had months to prepare the letter but it does not look like it.

The fight against Brexit starts today

The fight-back against Brexit starts today as the triggering of Article 50 opens negotiations on our future. For me the European Union is not only an economic union but a social and political alliance formed after World War II to ensure a peaceful continent.

This has been my conviction for a long time. At the age of 17, in 1959, I spoke in a debate on Europe and said we should not forget that Europe reached to the Urals. Long ago I realised I would not see that youthful dream come true, but I don’t want see what has been achieved thrown away by English nationalists.

I am angered each time Mrs May talks about representing everyone in the United Kingdom as she did this afternoon. That is not true. She does not speak for me. She has declared war on everything I believe.

There is no inevitability about what happens in the next two years. The EU will undoubtedly change in the next 18 months and such reforms will be the priority of the 27 countries remaining: the UK will have no influence but they could make Europe more acceptable to some here.

As the Brexit negotiations develop there will be changes in public feelings here. We simply cannot guess what will happen in the talks or how people will react. It maybe that a deal which would keep the Northern Ireland and Scotland within the UK could be reached or it could be going over the cliff edge.

My objective is to see the Article 50 letter revoked and the UK remaining a member of the EU. The argument that this cannot be legally done is fallacious. The law has not been tested and at some stage the European Court is likely to rule on this. There are plenty of people both here and in European countries believe it can be done.

But, in the end, it is a political matter. If both side in the negotiations wanted it to happen the law would not stand in the way.

I am optimistic because I don’t think Mrs May will want to go down in history as the prime minister who took England and Wales out of both the European Union and the United Kingdom.

 

Trump victory will make Brexit even more painful

The Iberian peninsular breaks away from the mainland and heads towards America before eventually returning to Europe, in The Stone Raft, a wonderful novel by José Saramago.

It feels today as if the United Kingdom will start a similar journey into dangerous waters when the decision to leave the EU is made irrevocable by signing Article 50. But the far coast is much less attractive with a protectionist Donald Trump in the White House.

While the political establishments in both the UK and the USA have miscalculated the anger of many electors the similarity of the Brexit and Presidential votes ends there. The consequences are very different.

As the Economist comments:

Brexit is a giant shock to Britain’s place in the world. It will sever old links and require new ones to be forged. As some of its keenest proponents concede, this transition will bring painful costs. Most of all it demands lots of good will and flexibility on all sides. In so far as Mr Trump’s win means a meaner, more fractious, more volatile global order, it raises those costs and shrinks that space for compromise and consensus essential for a smooth Brexit.

It seems to me that we now need, more than ever, to be a part of strong European Union and its trading bloc.