Sheffield Full Council yesterday was met with a large pro-EU rally with speakers from all parties and other groups, including Sheffield Lib Dem group leader Shaffaq Mohammed.
The debate continued in the chamber, on item 10, which was moved up the agenda in response to the demo. Sheffield is one of those councils that has this kind of debate quite regularly in full council, the business of running a council being decided in cabinet. Whether this is a good use of everyone’s time is questionable, but it is how we do things.
I think it is fair to say that the Labour and Greens in their amendments and their speeches inside and outside the town hall, were more accepting of the result, and less enthusiastic about fighting on than the Lib Dem position. This is understandable – Labour in particular, creaking in their heartlands, are desperate to reconnect with people voting on the issue of immigration above all else. Though they have been saying ‘we must reconnect’ for years and haven’t yet worked out how to do it.
I believe that an immediate rerun is not justified, but as the leave campaign existed in three incompatible versions and promised as they see it all the benefits of EU membership with none of the costs, it is justified to put an actual exit package back to the voters, when such a thing exists.
Clearly the Tories do not have a plan for how to approach article 50 negotiations, and I suspect even a new leader may take many months to develop this plan. Labour, at the moment could not agree the best way out of a wet paper bag. With government and opposition in disarray, everyone else needs to clearly put their demands for their priorities for the Article 50 negotiations. Access to the single market for manufactures is more important to Sheffield than the passporting of financial services. Participation in EU science programmes is also of enormous value to our universities. And let’s not forget regional regeneration funding, though that is a harder ask to sustain when most of the net recipients voted to leave.
Other regions, nations, industries, farmers and fishermen need also to make their demands loud and clear. When government doesn’t know what to do is the best time to influence it. My view is that once we add up all the benefits of EU membership we want to retain, continued membership might just suddenly seem a much better idea.
But wait, I am forgetting. Somebody must have a plan. What about UKIP – the party whose entire existence has been leading up to this point? They must know what to do next. I refer to clause (i) of the UKIP amemdment (which should be on the web link above before long):
believes that this rudderless Government and the weak Opposition, along with all political parties, should now pull together to develop a smooth process for “Brexit” and instigate Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon when it considers it is the right time to do so, thereby commencing the two year exit period;
Not only do UKIP not know how they want to go about implementing their one single central policy, they want a parliament, largely of remainers, to come together and agree when it should happen, which may not be for some considerable time.
I am gobsmacked. If even UKIP have got cold feet on Brexit, it is time for the country to think again.
I leave you with new member, Madeleina Kay and I’m sorry we left EU.
* Joe Otten was the candidate for Sheffield Heeley in June 2017 and Doncaster North in December 2019 and is a councillor in Sheffield.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
F10 is passed overwhelmingly. Now the work begins...
Blackness Road - 1967 #dundeewestend
Torchwood is now a Cardiff Bay institution
Rising Damp: Rigsby burning love wood outside Miss Jones's hut
Paul Duffy selected by Lib Dems for Runcorn & Helsby by-election
theakes
Thelma Davies
Simon R
Big Tall Tim
Mike Peters
15 Comments
Would any Prime Minister be so reckless as to pull the trigger of Article 50 before the outcome of any brexit negotiations with the EU were known?
Would their party and Parliament countenance such an act of supreme folly?
Those are the questions which must first be addressed.
“But wait, I am forgetting. Somebody must have a plan. What about UKIP – the party whose entire existence has been leading up to this point?……………Not only do UKIP not know how they want to go about implementing their one single central policy, they want a parliament, largely of remainers, to come together and agree when it should happen, which may not be for some considerable time.”
They have a plan in fact you’ve set it out, they want the other political parties to negotiate our exit and deal with the economy AND when it goes misshaped they pop up and say “if we had done it it would have been much better” and “oh look there is an immigrant over there”. Tis a simple plan but they are aiming for those that like simple solutions.
John in answer to your questions it would be a Yes and a Yes I’m afraid.
If you read Ukip’s 2016 manifesto it will give you precisely what a Ukip government would do on leaving the EU. The problem is that there is currently a Conservative government who failed to realise that the country wanted to Leave the EU. Putting your head in the sand and ignoring the referendum result is hardly a way forward .. ignoring democratic votes is the route to anarchy, is that Liberal policy now? If you truly want current problems sorted out quickly you should be calling for a general election and a Ukip government. After all Ukip have been leading the way on this for many years.
My understanding is that negotiations will only take place after the UK has informed the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU.
No doubt if I am wrong somebody will correct me.
Article 50 reads as follows.
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof.
Dave, the UKIP manifesto calls for article 50 to be invoked and then negotiations begun with the following objectives:
“What do we wish to achieve from our negotiations with the
EU? Our objectives are clear:
Firstly, we will secure trade agreements with the EU, the 40
nations with trade agreements with the EU and other nations
of interest to us. As a G7 member, a leading world economy,
the fifth largest by GDP, this will be a rapid process in most
cases. Countries already trading with the EU will want to
continue seamless trade relationships; other world nations
will want to forge new trade alliances with the UK; and all
nations will find it easier to deal with the UK directly.
As a minimum, we will seek continued access on
free-trade terms to the EU’s single market. Our
custom is valuable to the EU now and will continue
to be so following Brexit.
Secondly, there will be a wide range of issues on which
we will want to continue to co-operate. These include
extradition treaties, cross-border intelligence, disaster
relief, accommodation of refugees, pan-EU healthcare
arrangements and various other cultural projects. We
will also maintain our membership of pan-European
institutions, such as the European Space Agency and the
European Medicines Agency”
That’s all perfectly reasonable, though precedent suggests the cost will be adherence to EU rules, free movement of labour (actually a benefit) and payment into the EU budget. It would be, more or less, a unilateral surrender of influence and little else. But it is a clear position, and an honourable betrayal of the racial hatred that ignited much the leave campaign.
So what were your UKIP friends on Sheffield Council talking about with “when it considers the time is right”?
“it is justified to put an actual exit package back to the voters, when such a thing exists”
That was my reaction too the day after the referendum, but events soon showed that such a second referendum would be entirely pointless.
People are talking as if, at the end of the two-year Article 50 period, we can simply realise the error of our ways, slap our foreheads James Finlayson-style and change our minds about leaving. But as far as I know there is nothing in the treaties that gives us the right to do that. Perhaps the EU itself could engineer a way out for us; but that would require the agreement of all member states, and clearly they would not be remotely beholden by the result of any UK referendum. So we’d be spending another 80 million quid (or whatever the current going rate is) on another referendum which would have no power whatsoever.
People are also talking as if there will be some sort of meaningful negotiations before Article 50 is triggered – even though both the EU and Theresa May have very firmly ruled out such a thing happening, and no doubt Leadsom thinks the same.
Stuart – it is a critical question. The treaty is silent on whether we can change our minds within the two years. It is surely worth clarifying this somehow before invoking the process – it changes the dynamic substantially.
@Stuart
We are in uncharted territory so who knows. If other EU nations were genuine when they said they wanted us to stay in, then do the rules preclude the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations being that we stay in after all?
Like you, I doubt the EU is willing to negotiate prior to triggering Article 50.
If we think the best way forward from the position we are in right now is to hold a second referendum when the exit terms are known, then we should strive to achieve that unless it can be shown to be absolutely impossible. The £80m is a drop in the ocean compared to the economic impact that has already begun.
Frankie: You say “John in answer to your questions it would be a Yes and a Yes I’m afraid.” However, I can’t believe this because to trigger Article 50 would be such a monumental leap in the dark (as reckless in its way as the invasion of Iraq) and doubtless the EU would be determined to make an example of us. Is the majority of British politicians quite so crazy?
Of course UKIP has a plan. I have a copy sitting on my desk. However, I sincerely hope we will not be handing it over to another party to implement. That has already happened with too many of our Westminster policies in the past. (Yes, I could stop and make time to list where this has happened but it isn’t my priority right now so I shan’t.) We are rubbished and our policies ‘borrowed’ by others and passed off as their own. However, the economy has not tanked catastrophically. Business continues and countries from around the world are getting in touch to start talks on trade deals. Life goes on. We’re going to be just fine.
A consensus of economists from around the world has put the current damage to the UK economy at 1% of GDP.
Boris Johnson should be invited to pay.
Sir Julian King, a diplomat, has been nominated to replace the British Commissioner. he will be interviewed by officials and MEPs.
http://www.cityam.com/245072/david-cameron-nominates-sir-julian-king-uks-eu-commissioner
At the NATO summit David Cameron has lifted the ban on women serving in close combat roles.
The Tory leadership battle ends on 9 September.
A consensus of economists failed to predict the financial crisis and the oil price slump. Everyone is guessing.
Actually only libertarian mavericks predicted those events and they are universally against the EU project of greater expansion. Too many folk in the media count heads rather than ask about past performance.
When writing expert systems you don’t ask for a huge bunch of me-too qualified guessers when preparing rules; instead you ask the one or two people who have a track record of being correct because they are always the real experts. Alas real experts are actually as rare as gold dust in this world of poor memories, self-aggrandizement and declining standards!
@Jamesg,
I’m not sure that you can call them “Libertarian Mavericks” but economists such as Steve Keen, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell, Randall Wray have a good track record of predicting problems.
I’d also add the late Wynne Godley to the list. This is him as long ago as 1992 telling it like it is on the idea of the euro.
” If a country or region has no power to devalue, and if it is not the beneficiary of a system of fiscal equalisation, then there is nothing to stop it suffering a process of cumulative and terminal decline leading, in the end, to emigration as the only alternative to poverty or starvation.”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that
“
John you’re dealing with fanatics, so rationality doesn’t come into it. So yes I’m afraid no matter what they will trigger article 50 and hope for the best. Remember
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
Winston Churchill