So the EU won’t be passing any new laws then?

The European Union is insisting on cast iron guarantees that Britain will not attempt to reopen the terms of any Brexit deal after it has been signed, confidential diplomatic notes reveal.

The Times has learnt that, in a rebuff to Michael Gove, Brussels is preparing to demand that Theresa May makes “credible” assurances that any deal will not be unpicked by her successor.

Because new laws and regulations which apply to Britain as a result of a deal would indeed by unpicking it, wouldn’t they?

How interesting

British businesses will be hit by a “sledgehammer” of red tape that will increase costs for companies and damage trade should the UK bow out of Europe without securing a Brexit agreement.

We leave the fount of red tape and we’ll have more? And we’ve already put all that red tape into domestic law anyway?

Brexit’s really about not being in the EU of tomorrow

Jean-Claude Juncker has demanded that European Union governments sacrifice their vetoes on EU foreign policy decisions in a flagship speech that called for more national powers to be centralised in Brussels.

The president of the European Commission called on Wednesday “for a stronger, more united Europe” that could flex its muscles as a “global player”.

He said that could only be achieved by EU countries pooling their sovereignty to boost the bloc’s economic, political and military power. But he denied he was trying to turn the EU into “a superpower”.

Vile as the current set up is – and thus we’re leaving – ponder on how appalling it’s likely to get. If it manages to survive of course.

Ah, yes, European democracy

A second Brexit referendum could be for the best: look at Ireland and Lisbon
Brigid Laffan
When Ireland went back to the polls in 2009, it wasn’t about overturning democracy, but doing it properly

European democracy being defined by producing the correct answer rather than any will of the people.

Miliboy D and logic

The real Brexit choice lies ahead this autumn: a bad deal or a people’s vote, writes David Miliband

Why would a peoples’ vote necessarily stop a bad deal? After all, Miliboy D is pretty inside with he idea that the last peoples’ vote endorsed a bad deal in very Brexit itself…..

Can we guess what’s in Michel Barnier’s deal?

The European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator has said he would offer the UK a trade agreement “such as there never has been”, while the French President Emmanuel ­Macron is also reportedly softening his ­position in a bid avoid a “no-deal” scenario.

The EU has long resisted a bespoke deal, with Britain essentially being forced to choose between existing trading models such as those used by Norway and Canada.

But in comments that prompted a rise in the value of the pound, Michel Barnier told reporters in Berlin that the EU is prepared to offer the UK a unique agreement which would mean an unprecedentedly close relationship with the bloc.

1) Pay into the EU budget
2) Free movement of people
3) No independent trade treaties
4) Full regulatory alignment with the EU.

In effect, your special deal is to be in but with no say in anything. Won’t that be special?

As to the substance of Keir Starmer’s complaint

Theresa May and the government would face a race against time to pass a slew of new laws, or risk creating an “unsustainable legal vacuum”, if Britain plunged out of the EU without a deal, Labour’s Keir Starmer has warned.

Dominic Raab insisted last week that the government had the legislation in place to cope, if Britain is forced to leave in March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement.

“Our laws will be on the statute book, the staff will be in place, the teams will be in post and our institutions will be ready for Brexit – deal, or no deal,” the Brexit secretary said.

But Labour’s analysis suggests new legislation would have to be passed hastily in four key policy areas:

EU citizens’ rights.
Immigration rules for EU travellers entering Britain.
Criminals held under the European arrest warrant.
The Irish border.

Note what Starmer’s compaint actually is. If we change the laws then we’ll have to change the laws.

Well, yes, probably so Keir.

Rather fun

Last couple of days there’ve been a couple of pieces about being a student doing languages with a gap year abroad. You know, go to Italy so you actually learn how to speak Italian.

One for France, another for Italy. Both marvel at and complain bitterly about the bureaucracy.

Hmm. So, Italy and France are places with lovely weather, nice people, good food and lousy, lousy, governance.

Great, the solution being to share the weather, food, booze, people and not the governance then, right?

Be part of Europe and not the European Union…..

Takes two to Tango

Dominic Raab lashed out at “hair-raising scare stories” about a no deal Brexit at a press conference with Michel Barnier on Tuesday, as the EU’s chief negotiator warned that Brussels would not accept the blame for failure to strike an agreement.

It’s not true that failure to reach an agreement should be blamed on all parties equally. And it’s also not, necessarily, true that one or other party should be blamed at all. Sometimes people simply are intransigent and agreement cannot be reached, whatever one side does.

But the way to bet is still that if agreement doesn’t happen then both sides are at least a bit to blame.

Purest drivel

Remoaners again:

This week the Guardian added more colour and detail to the picture that, along with the Observer, it has been revealing for months. Specifically, it published details of the lucrative goldmining deal that was dangled by the Russian ambassador in front of Arron Banks, the main donor behind Leave.EU, in the lead-up to the Brexit vote. Readers can now see for themselves the tempting PowerPoint presentation Moscow made to Banks – opening with a slide of shimmering gold bars, complete with Cyrillic engraving, alongside a Russian flag.

At the very least, you would think the UK government might be curious as to why Putin’s top diplomat in London would favour Banks not only with multiple meetings – four at last count, though Banks used to say they had met only once – but with such exclusive “opportunities not available to others”, to quote the pitch document. Banks says he didn’t take up the golden offer, which included a promise of support from a Kremlin bank, much as Trump says the Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russian representatives promising dirt on Hillary Clinton “went nowhere”. But that is hardly the point. Given that Banks has never explained the precise source of the £9m he gave to the Brexit campaign – the largest single donation in UK political history – the fact that the Russians lavished such preferential attention on him requires explanation, starting with: what exactly did they expect in return?

Bloke who looks at pitch documents for a living is shown pitch document. Therefore we shouldn’t leave the EU.

A very small part of being an entrepreneur is in trying to find the people to run the business, businesses, which one already owns. It’s the essential step in stopping being a one man band and making that leap into corporate oligarch. A slightly larger amount of time will be spent in considering which of the things that one already does are things that one should stop doing. When to sell a profitable set up, when to close down and abandon one not working and so on. But the vast majority of time will be spent considering what should be done next. Sifting through the sea of deals on offer to uncover that rare valuable nugget amongst the fool’s gold.

Being successful at this level is about having that nose for that nugget. It also means reading and being pitched upon an awfully large amount of the most utter dross.

Sigh.

Hmmm

Things seem to be moving the right way for those champions of a second referendum, who include everyone from Labour peer Lord Adonis and Conservative MP Anna Soubry to the increasingly statesmanlike former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major…

Increasingly statesmanlike means begins to agree with me.

Shame on Molly Scott Cato

So what’s the game? Why would a politician representing the good people of North East Somerset – whose livelihoods depend on the stability of our economy and who would be devastated by the no-deal Brexit he is happy to promote – seemingly behave so irresponsibly? Could it perhaps have something to do with personal economic gain rather than national economic opportunities?

Despicable cow.

We must declare war on Brussels

From the revision of treason paper:

The law should recognise and reinforce the duty of non-betrayal,
both to signal clearly that society views treachery as a distinct assault
on the whole and to punish those who breach the duty, thereby helping
deter those who might otherwise consider breaching it. This duty has
historically been upheld by the law of treason. However, the UK’s law of
treason is ancient law and is now unworkable. The Treason Act 1351 has
been overtaken by changes in modern social and political conditions; it is
not a secure ground on which to mount prosecutions. It stands in contrast
to the law in other common law jurisdictions. The UK needs to update its
laws to make clear that the underlying ethos has not changed – betrayal
is a specific crime against society and one that deserves punishment. At a
minimum, Parliament should reform our law to follow Australia and New
Zealand and thus make it clear that it is unlawful to aid the enemy either
in an international armed conflict or in a non-international armed conflict.

Quite so. Declare war on Brussels, send over a platoon to wave rifles at the Berlaymont and then we get to be all Ecksian on the Remoaners.

Can’t fault it myself.

Well, that’s clear enough then

Dominic Raab faced ridicule on his first trip to Brussels as Brexit Secretary as the EU flatly rejected Theresa May’s Chequers plan and mocked spelling errors in translations of the document.

Senior EU diplomats made it clear that the Brexit white paper agreed at Chequers cannot form the basis for negotiations, as British sources said the EU was being “deeply unhelpful”.

So it won’t work anyway.