Brexit

“Steven Woolfe has then taken his jacket off, walked over and said: ‘Right you, outside now’ 

independent.co.uk
David Cameron reportedly texted Boris Johnson to say 'you should have stuck with me, mate' after Michael Gove betrayal
Charlotte England
Former prime minister David Cameron texted Boris Johnson to gloat after the now foreign secretary was betrayed in his Tory leadership bid by Leave Campaign ally Michael Gove, a new book has claimed.
Mr Gove managed Mr Johnson’s campaign to become prime minister, before changing his mind the night before nominations were announced and running himself, forcing Mr Johnson to withdraw from the contest.
Mr Cameron, who campaigned to remain in the EU and resigned over the referendum result, texted Mr Johnson and said:  "you should have stuck with me, mate," following the debacle, author Tim Shipman has said. 
In a book telling "the disastrous inside story of how Boris did not become prime minister", Mr Shipman reported that, following the Brexit referendum in June, Mr Gove initially agreed to back his colleague for the top job, despite the fact he was under "intense pressure from close allies" to run for the leadership himself. 
But the relationship between the two politicians disintegrated over a series of mistakes and misunderstandings.  
First, an email to Mr Gove from his wife was leaked. In it she urged her husband to get "specific assurances" from Mr Johnson and "not to concede ground", Mr Shipman said. 
The email was posted online and went viral, damaging the relationship between the two men. 
The situation reportedly worsened when an election strategist advised Mr Johnson to bring Eurosceptic MP Angela Leadsom on board, suggesting she could be helpful to his campaign.
Mr Johnson agreed and allegedly offered Ms Leadsom a top three job: deputy prime minister, Brexit negotiator or chancellor.
But, the book says, Mr Johnson became distracted when he encountered difficulties writing his campaign launch speech.
According to the book, he became so stressed by the task that he failed to ensure a letter was delivered to Ms Leadsom confirming his offer of an important position in his government.
Annoyed at the delay, Ms Leadsom reportedly texted Mr Johnson to say the deal was off.
Mr Gove “went ballistic", a source told Mr Shipman, and decided it was "too big a risk for the country" to allow someone as "incompetent" as Mr Johnson to become prime minister.
Over the course of the night, Mr Gove – who Mr Shipman said may also have been moved by speeches about how good a leader Mr Cameron was – decided he would put in his own leadership bid.
He reportedly told advisors: “I don’t have the luxury of time. Tomorrow I have to say to my colleagues and the country, ‘I think this man is ready to be prime minister’ and be held to account forever for having made that claim – or not”

Ten things Boris Johnson doesn't want you to know

When he first heard, Mr Johnson reportedly did not believe Mr Gove had decided to run, but when he realised the news was true he decided he could no longer stand in the contest. 
He said later: “To go on would have been very bloody, and with Gove’s knife in my back it would have been hard to pick up momentum again with colleagues.”
The book claims one person who was with Mr Johnson when the nominations were announced said: “I’ve never seen him so winded. He looked utterly crushed. It was not the realisation it might all be over; it was just the betrayal” 
David Cameron, however, was reportedly described by a member of the cabinet as “the happiest I have seen him in a long time".

William Murderface wrote:Nije u tome stvar, Britanci su sami sebe opalili po nosu, kao što te vesti jasno pokazuju. 

Brexit court defeat for UK government

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785

Pržun wrote:

William Murderface wrote:Nije u tome stvar, Britanci su sami sebe opalili po nosu, kao što te vesti jasno pokazuju. 

Vesti jasno pokazuju i da Srbija dozivljava privredni procvat, a da premijera zbog toga zele da ubiju. Kolicina dezinformacija, poluistina i raznoraznih gluposti koje se sire odande je zapanjuca. Ja to razumem kao nemoc liberalnih elita sto su izgubile, pa onda nalaze pornografski odusak u ovakvim vestima.

Leaked Brexit memo: Whitehall struggling to cope and no single plan

Jennifer Rankin

Whitehall is struggling to cope with the scale of work generated by the Brexit vote and the lack of a common strategy among cabinet ministers, according to a report about a leaked Cabinet Office memo.
The note found that departments were working on more than 500 projects related to leaving the EU and may need to hire an extra 30,000 civil servants to deal with the additional work.
It identified a tendency by Theresa May to “draw in decisions and settle matters herself” as a strategy that could not be sustained, and highlighted a split between the three Brexit ministers – Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and David Davis – and the chancellor, Philip Hammond, and his ally Greg Clark, the business secretary.
The note, leaked to the Times and said to be dated 7 November, also claimed that “no common strategy has emerged” on Brexit between departments despite extended debate among the permanent secretaries who head Whitehall departments.



In addition, it said major industry players were expected to “point a gun to the government’s head” to get what they wanted after the carmaker Nissan was given assurances that it would not lose out from investing in Britain after Brexit.
It is understood the report was written by a consultant at the professional services firm Deloitte. A government source said it was “unsolicited” and its contents were not recognised.
Chris Grayling, the transport secretary who sits on the government’s Brexit cabinet committee, said he had no idea where the report had come from and denied it had been commissioned by ministers.
“The process is complex but by no means the challenge that is set out in today’s newspaper story,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I have a team of people in my department who are working with David Davis on issues like aviation, but I do not see the scale of the challenge that is in today’s newspaper.”
Asked if the government was planning to hire 30,000 civil servants to cope with the extra pressures of the negotiations, Grayling said: “I have not seen anything to suggest that is the case. We have got people in my department [and] in other departments working with the Brexit department. I don’t know what 30,000 extra people would do.”
A government spokesman also denied the existence of an official memo, which the Times said had been drafted by an outside consultant. The spokesman said: “This is not a government report and we don’t recognise the claims made in it. We are focused on getting on with the job of delivering Brexit and making a success of it.”
It is understood not to have been seen by ministers or commissioned as an official report by the Cabinet Office.
The note appears to be one of a number of recent leaks from the heart of government discussing dissent among senior figures about how May should approach Brexit.
The prime minister has promised to start the process of leaving the EU by the end of March next year but declined to reveal details of her approach, beyond saying there must be a bespoke deal to allow immigration controls as well as maintaining access to the single market.
The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said the leaked report showed a “shambles at the heart of government” over the direction of Brexit. “It’s time for the prime minister to stop being led astray by her warring cabinet,” he said. “Otherwise her government is heading for the worst possible outcome: a reckless, destructive Brexit that will do untold damage to British jobs and the economy.”

Twitter is a beautiful place sometimes. pic.twitter.com/e7mlOQlatG

— Uzma Chaudhry (@Uzzywuzzy) December 4, 2016

No Country wrote:Знам и ја једног Аниша Патела, ал' није тај. Ипак мислим да је овде у питању један транзициони феномен.

[size=44]Schrödinger’s Brexit[/size]

SOMETIMES an analogy strikes you on the head with the force of a plummeting cricket ball. On [size=15]Radio 4 yesterday, Hamish Johnson, editor of physicsworld.com, had the brilliant insight to explain the British government’s policy in terms of physics; Schrödinger’s Brexit.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Theresa May’s speech means the Brexit phony war may be ending
David Allen Green

|  Jan 17 15:52  |  http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-speech-means-the-brexit-phony-war-may-be-ending/  


For a speech that she did not need to make, Tuesday’s Brexit speech by Theresa May was significant. Had the day come and gone without anyone being told there would be a speech then nobody would have expected or asked for one. The first significant thing about the speech is that she gave one at all.


And it was not a bad speech. You could not have reasonably asked for any more detail at this stage of the process. There was even some new information. This was not that parliament would vote on any final Brexit deal (there would be no other way) or that the UK would be leaving the single market (this was the necessary implication of what was already plain). The two things that were new and significant were about the customs union and about “phased implementation” (that is, transitional arrangements).


The UK wants to set its own tariffs for trade with the EU and the rest of the world. This is not possible under the common commercial policy and the common external tariff. But stepping out of the customs union means that, in principle, tariffs will apply between Britain and the Union. In other words, trade with our major trading partner will be affected.

The speech indicated that Mrs May will seek to get round that inconvenience:

“Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.
“That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.
“Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.“

She says elsewhere, however, that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”. So businesses face the certainty of the country stepping outside a customs union (and so facing tariffs) but not (currently) the same absolute certainty of there being a tariffs deal.

The prime minister cannot now be faulted for lack of clarity on the ultimate question of membership of the EU customs union. What will replace it is not clear and is up for negotiation. But businesses can at least plan for steep hikes in tariffs, until and unless there is an agreement otherwise.

The other significant novelty in the speech was the talk of “phases”. This is a word we will hear a lot about. The implementation will be phased. Different things will be implemented in different phases. To use a horrible term from the world of civil justice, there will be a kind of “multi-track” approach.

Mrs May said:
“I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the 2-year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.
“This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we co-operate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation.
“But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.”

If you look carefully at this passage, you will see there is a lot of wiggle-room. So much so that “EU institutions” can still have involvement. And you will also see that something is not there: a deadline. The prime minister did not provide a hard date by which any phase will end. The only restriction will be that the phase will not last forever:
“I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory. That would not be good for Britain, but nor do I believe it would be good for the EU.”

A phase that lasts forever, minus one day, is thereby not ruled out. This is sensible stuff. There is no way EU membership of the UK can be dismantled in two years. There is no reason why the hard Brexit has to happen immediately. Admitting that there will be a phased approach, and going further and saying there will be phased approaches (in the plural) shows that the government is finally getting a grip on the process of achieving an exit.

One impression the speech gave is that a hard Brexit will be implemented because a soft Brexit would be difficult – just as Blaise Pascal once said that he was writing a letter long because he did have enough time to write it short.

Rather than the prospect of years of negotiation with skilled and experienced EU officials over keeping the UK as a member of the single market, the government has shrugged and decided to go for the easier (if more perilous) option. Until Tuesday, there was still a kind of debate over what shade of Brexit. Now it is plain: a full Brexit is the only kind on offer.

But this is not entirely a matter of choice for the UK. It was perhaps the only position left, given the Article 50 default position and the settled and resolute stance of the EU on freedom of movement. Any attempt to negotiate around this may not succeed. In a way, the speech is an admission by Britain that the EU has won the first (informal) round of the negotiations, by providing the terms of the departure. The EU said that there would be no membership of the single market without freedom of movement and the UK has now conceded this.

Mrs May did not need to make this speech (though she was due to provide a “plan” for leaving the EU before the end of March, and Number 10 has confirmed the speech constitutes that plan). But now that she has made the speech, the daft days of “no cards on the table” and “no running commentary” may be over. The prime minister did not even use the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”.

The speech was realistic, as far as the move is realistic. Implied positions are now explicit; the need for transitional “phases” is admitted. The phony war over Brexit may be coming to an end.