If the answer is David Cameron, what on earth was the question?

If the answer is David Cameron, what on earth was the question?

Nov 15, 2023 | Bylines, News

Cameron’s back in government, despite not being an elected MP – and despite austerity, Greensill and Brexit, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Just a few short (or tediously long) weeks ago, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared himself to be the man to “fundamentally change our country”. At the recent Conservative Party conference, Sunak aimed to convince his audience that he was the “change candidate” – the one to breathe new life into a very poorly party, and a very poorly country. Those claims now look increasingly ridiculous following his latest reshuffle, and the return of David Cameron to frontline politics.

Cameron’s back

Following the sacking of Home Secretary Suella Braverman (finally, and not for the first time) on Monday morning, James Cleverly was shuffled from the Foreign Office to the Home Office. His appointment as Home Secretary comes just 48 hours ahead of a Supreme Court decision on Wednesday regarding the government’s Rwanda deportation plans.

In his place, former PM David Cameron has been appointed foreign secretary, despite him not being a serving MP. In order to be able to take up a place in Cabinet, Cameron – who resigned as PM over Brexit following the 2016 referendum – has also received a life peerage.

It would seem that Sunak is willing to overlook Cameron’s previous poor judgement over Brexit, austerity and a lobbying Scandal involving Greensill and the pocketing of $10mn dollars. Perhaps, after everything that Braverman has put Sunak through while in office, Cameron looks a cosy companion by comparison.

Spoilt for choice, not!

When the answer to any question is David Cameron, then you know the country is in deep trouble. Bringing back the man largely responsible for the beginning – if not the end – of the destruction of the Tory party, is bad enough. Let alone the damage done to the country. Not that this would be of any concern to Sunak, who seems intent on doing all he can to make matters even worse.

What the decision does spell out clearly – to those in Westminster and in the country at large – is the complete lack of talent there is to choose from, either on the front or back benches.

According to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby, a former Cabinet minister said Cameron’s return was “a message to the House of Commons that we don’t have any MPs that the prime minister felt was good enough”. And these are the people making life-changing decisions and supposedly running our country.

Leader of the True and Fair Party, Gina Miller, said of Cameron’s appointment that it exposed “the vacuum of accountability at the heart of government”. Miller also pointed out that Cameron would “not even be able to answer questions in the House of Commons”. She called on Sunak to reset the rules to allow ministers from the House of Lords to be questioned in the Commons.

Green MP Caroline Lucas questioned whether we can now expect major foreign policy statements to be made in the unelected Lords, describing the prospect as an “unacceptable degrading of [a] key office of state”. She added, “appointing the reckless Brexit referendum instigator” as foreign secretary was a “democratic embarrassment”

 

Sense of entitlement

If Sunak believes Cameron to be the best person for the job, then he is seriously misjudging both the role of foreign secretary and the extent of Cameron’s talents. But then he’d be in good company with Cameron himself. According to LBC’s James O’Brien, author of How they broke Britain, Cameron not only “thinks he’s a genius” but thinks he’s “possessed of some unique set of skills”. His tenure at number 10, and his handling of Conservative Party divisions – Brexit in particular – would seem to prove otherwise.

Sharing his good fortune on X, formerly known as Twitter, Cameron identified a “daunting set of international challenges” that the country faces, “at this time of global change”. He said that while he “may have disagreed with some individual decisions” made by the PM, Sunak was a “strong and capable Prime Minister”. Clearly Cameron’s judgement has not improved any over his seven-year semi-retirement. Nor his sense of entitlement.

Cameron may not be expecting a full-blooded welcome back, but I wouldn’t put it past him. Whether the country has forgiven or forgotten his misdeeds – gambling away our futures for the sake of his party, ruining our trading relationship with our European neighbours, or walking away from the mess he created – remains to be seen.

One saving grace is that, if all goes as expected, Cameron’s role will be short-lived. His likely replacement, shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, put it best. Cameron “was a disastrous PM” and this is “a last gasp act of desperation from a government devoid of talent and ideas”.

What a shame we won’t get to see Cameron vs Lammy at the despatch boxes. But let’s be grateful for small mercies. Not seeing Cameron back in the Commons is definitely preferable to the alternative.

 

Suella Braverman ‘inflames tensions’ ahead of Remembrance weekend

Suella Braverman ‘inflames tensions’ ahead of Remembrance weekend

Nov 10, 2023 | Bylines, News

Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s latest comments suggesting the police ‘play favourites’ with protests draw stark criticism, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On Thursday 9 November, The Times published an article by the home secretary entitled, ‘Suella Braverman brands Met police biased over pro-Palestinian protest’. The much-criticised article came after days of media speculation regarding a planned march in London this weekend.

Initially, there were concerns that the march would interfere with the Remembrance Day service at the Cenotaph on Sunday. But it soon became clear, to any with their eyes and their hearts open, that the two events were on different days and in different parts of London, so one was unlikely to interfere with the other. The article seems to have been in direct response to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s comments a day earlier that there were insufficient grounds to ban this weekend’s march.

In her article, Braverman asks the question, “are some public displays so offensive that they deserve to be banned?” Clearly, she believes the answer to be yes, and that doesn’t apply just to marches. In fact, the list of things that the home secretary finds offensive is a long one, including, not least, the homeless and asylum seekers. What’s worse is she claims to speak on behalf of the “compassionate” British public.

According to the home secretary, the pro-Palestinian movement “has mobilised tens of thousands of angry demonstrators and marched them through London every weekend”. She refuted the claim that the marches were a “cry for help for Gaza” and even accused the march group’s organisers of having links to terrorist organisations, including Hamas. She again used the term “hate marchers”, adding that she did not “resile” from the term

 

Braverman: police ‘playing favourites’

Braverman suggested these events were problematic, not because of the “violence around the fringes” but because of “the highly offensive content of chants, posters and stickers”. She believes “there is a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protestors”, with the police favouring the left. A claim that Mr. Stop Brexit, Steve Bray, would no doubt dispute most vigorously. She suggested that aggressive right-wing protestors are met with a “stern response” from the police, while their left-wing counterparts are “largely ignored” when displaying the same behaviour. Senior former and serving officers agreed with her that there was a “double standard”, she claimed, though not enough for any of them to have been quoted directly, it would seem.

 

Strong criticism from Labour

Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, didn’t mince her words. She accused the home secretary of “attacking police impartiality” and “deliberately undermining respect for the police”. Braverman was “deliberately inflaming community tensions in the most dangerous of ways”, and was attacking the police at a time when she should be supporting them.

Cooper described Braverman’s comments as “highly irresponsible and dangerous”, and said that many former police chiefs were lining up to condemn her. She asked if the government “still believe in the operational independence of the police” and questioned whether the prime minister had endorsed the article. If he had done so, or was too weak to sack Braverman, then he had “given up”, and both the prime minister and the home secretary should go.

Chris Bryant described Suella Braverman as “a danger”, adding that her article “imperils good policing” and “inflames an already difficult situation”. He pointed out that only two Conservative MPs spoke in the House of Commons in defence of the home secretary, and only a handful were in attendance. He said not only was there no place for hate on our streets, but there was no place for hate in the Home Office either. The home secretary was trying to “command the police” and was “inciting hatred”.

Shadow Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, called the home secretary “out of control”, “utterly irresponsible” and “unhinged”. Cooper also critici

What did Downing Street know?

After much speculation on social media, regarding whether the prime minister had endorsed, or even seen, the Times article ahead of publication, Number 10 were forced to issue a statement. Downing Street had not signed off on the content, despite claims from Braverman’s aides to the contrary. Policing Minister, Chris Philps, when asked if Downing Street had approved the article said, “I’m afraid I don’t have any visibility on that at all”. No change there, then.

In fact, Number 10 had reviewed the content – even suggesting “major changes” – but it would appear those suggestions were ignored. The Downing Street response was then quickly followed by suggestions that Braverman was perhaps – not for the first time – in breach of the ministerial code. A Number 10 spokesperson confirmed that “the content was not agreed” and that the matter was being looked into. The ministerial code clearly states that the policy content and timing of all major press releases, interviews and appearances should be cleared by Number 10 “to ensure the effective coordination of cabinet business”.

No doubt there will be calls for Braverman’s resignation from the Home Office. Again. Even Sunak’s misguided predecessor had the temerity to fire the home secretary during her short reign in Number 10. Of course, it is possible, as many – including Cooper – have suggested, that this is exactly what Braverman wants, so she can openly campaign to be the next leader of the Conservatives/the next prime minister. Though its hard to see how that might look any different from what she’s doing right now.

The home secretary closed her article with, “the public will expect to see an assertive and proactive approach to any displays of hate, breaches of conditions and general disorder”. Perhaps, in the interests of free speech, democracy and tolerance, the police might like to start with the home secretary herself. Surely Braverman has done more to incite hatred, violence and division that any protestor on the streets of London.

Bremainers Ask …… Gina Miller

Bremainers Ask …… Gina Miller

Oct 31, 2023 | Bremainers Ask, News

Gina Miller is a dynamic businesswoman, activist and now, a UK political party leader. In 2012, Gina co-founded the True and Fair campaign, and has campaigned on issues as diverse as modern-day slavery, domestic violence, special needs, inequality, social justice, and online abuse.

She is probably best known for taking the Government to the Supreme Court for attempting to implement Brexit without Parliamentary approval and for successfully challenging the government over the prorogation of Parliament in 2019. She has since launched the True & Fair party and will stand for Parliament in the forthcoming election.

Tracy Rolfe : What do you think will be the path and timescale to rejoining the EU?

Under EU law, the UK is now a third country, so it would have to reapply and undergo the whole accession procedure from scratch, under Article 49 of the Treaty of European Union.

Art. 49 states that “any European State” which respects the common EU values and is “committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the union”. These values include “human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law”. In other words, even though our present Government is lurching to the right, we would still qualify.

On average, it has taken approximately nine years for recent members to join, from submitting a membership application to signing an accession treaty, for example Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania. But our having been members for 40 years would be a huge advantage over these countries. The fact that we have not diverged significantly from EU rules and regulations post Brexit is also beneficial. New border checks on EU imports have been delayed for a fifth time until January 2024, and the requirement for UK manufactured goods to have a UKCA instead of a EUCA mark from 2025 has been scrapped.

In other areas we are actively aligning with the EU: Horizon; aligning with the EU timeline for phasing out petrol and diesel cars; new food standards; and recoupling our electricity trading with the EU.

The question is purely a political one. It took Sweden and Finland only three years from application to the signing of an accession treaty. I see no reason why this time frame is not feasible for the UK, especially as we now have Poland and Ukraine as supporters of us rejoining.

 

Keith Glazzard : Keir Starmer has identified areas of common interest as the basis of regular consultation between the UK and EU. If Labour wins the next election, do you see any way of extending that idea towards eventual EU membership?

It is very hard to understand Labour’s strategy. The idea that a Labour Government would be able to cherry-pick is for the birds. The integrity of the single market is paramount to the EU. If we were to join the single market, what would be the EU’s incentive to offer us more? We would be in the position of having no say, no input, no vote on any committees, rules, or the future direction of travel. I am not a supporter of this option – especially after speaking to the EFTA members.

If Starmer’s starting point is to utilise the renegotiation clauses in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement that accompanies the Withdrawal Treaty, that would allow sector-by-sector solutions that would be hugely beneficial to the UK and could be a very pragmatic path to rejoining. Bearing in mind the polls are already consistently at between 58% – 63% for rejoin, I’m still unclear what Starmer is waiting for?

 

David Eldridge : Prior to the last election, you set up a website and conducted a poll encouraging tactical voting against the Conservatives. This time you have set up the True and Fair Party, presumably with the aim of standing against Labour and Conservative and therefore discouraging tactical voting. Please can you explain this change of strategy?

In 2017 when I set up Best for Britain, tactical voting was the right strategy to dent what was looking like a 100-seat majority for the Tories. It also helped our success that there were no other competing or misleading tactical voting sites.

In 2019, the Remain United tactical voting website was aimed at helping people to elect remain supporting, centrist MPs. Unfortunately, the Corbyn effect meant that good people like Monica Harding, Dominic Grieves, Luciana Berger and David Gauke, who we were supporting, all lost their seats. It also did not help that there were several other tactical voting websites that were masquerading as independent but were not.

Since 1998, I and others have been campaigning for reforms to strengthen our machinery of government, to replace our naive ‘good chap’ model of government with codified, legal requirements for those we elect and pay. To bring in wide-ranging but pragmatic constitutional and electoral reforms to modernise our democracy, improve governance, and combat the corruption that has earned us the nickname ‘Londongrad.’

These have been very difficult messages to get across to the electorate. But, after COVID, partygate and the corruption and disgraceful behaviour we have seen in Parliament in recent years, the public can see how broken and rotten our system is. People are thinking ‘they are all the same’ and feeling politically homeless. That the system is rigged with no redress, no matter how scandalously politicians behave. The sentiment of ‘them and us’ is becoming widespread, resulting in the apathy that we have already seen in recent by-elections, leading to very worrying low voter turnout figures. It is to the people who are saying “none of the above”, who abhor the status quo, that the True & Fair Party is offering a new choice.

 

Steve Wilson : Assuming you succeed in becoming MP for Epsom and Ewell, what will be your first order of business?

The national policies I would be relentlessly vocal about are enshrining the prerogative [powers in law (we cannot have a Prime Minister with largely unfettered powers); proportional representation; and rejoining the EU. Locally, a completely new vision for high streets and city centres: bringing health, well-being and community hubs into the High Street.

Helen Johnston : A new petition calling for a general election is gaining enormous support. What are the pros and cons of an early versus a later election date and do you think the timing would make a difference to the scale of the Conservative loss?

There are so many rumours and theories going around that it’s very difficult to tell what will happen.

Now that the Conservatives have repealed the Fixed Term Act, Sunak can call an election whenever he feels inclined to do so. The current Parliament first sat on 17 December 2019 and will automatically dissolve on 17 December 2024, with polling day expected to take place 25 days later (excluding bank holidays and weekends).

There are many factors Sunak will be weighing up, including:

Inflation is 6.7% today and is likely to carry on decreasing. The Bank of England expects inflation to fall to around 5% by the end of 2023, then to keep on falling during 2024 and reach its 2% target in the first half of 2025. The Government will claim it is their success, though this is largely not true. But there are still upside risks to the inflation outlook, likely reflecting recent stickiness in core inflation, meaning people will still be feeling it in their pockets.

The combination of falling inflation, and a budget with tax cuts and other fiscal bribes, could see Sunak call an election in May, maybe rolled up with the local May elections as they have done in the past. This has these huge political advantages for the Tories:

It stops the fractional infighting (‘lancing the boil’ as senior Tories have relayed to me) and allows them to rebuild their party in opposition sooner rather than later.
Local elections in May are expected to result in the Conservatives losing hundreds of seats and councils, and the London mayoral elections, which would be disastrous.
Sunak would avoid being replaced (several people are circling to take over – Braverman, Farage, Badenoch, Mordaunt – even Truss!) ahead of a late general election.
It would stop the haemorrhaging of supporters and members to the Reform Party.
I’m told another phrase being used by the Tories is ‘damage limitation’. They expect to limit losses, or at best scrape through, if they go early, do a pact with Reform UK (looking at the last two by-elections such a pact would have resulted in the Conservatives holding on to both Tamworth and Mid-Bedfordshire) and don’t allow Labour time to spell out their policies.
The other view is that the election will be called at the end of the short Parliamentary sitting next September, with the election in late Autumn. As you will recall at all the Party conferences this year, the repeated message was these were the last conferences before the next General Election. The financial assessments are that the worldwide picture will be better in autumn 2024. If America reduces interest rates, it’s likely Europe and Britain will follow, so an autumn 2024 election is economically more attractive.

This timing also has the advantage of being after a long parliamentary summer recess, when there is no real scrutiny and people are less politically engaged over summer, and a low turnout, which would help the Tories.

The disadvantages are that migrants’ Channel crossings are likely to rise over the summer, while the mortgage crisis may deepen as more people face the end of their current fixed rates around summer.

 

Tony Isaac : Is there any way that the Conservatives could turn things around and win the next election?

See my answer above but, in essence, yes. The maths here is important. For Labour to have even a one seat majority, they need to win 124 seats. For a stable majority of 30 they need to win 153 seats. If the by-election swings are not replicated at the general election (historically the case), there is no Tory/Reform UK pact, Labour and LibDems don’t have an agreement in certain crucial seats, Labour do not win back the seats they need in Scotland, and voter apathy remains at the levels our True & Fair polling is finding (with turnout in the low to mid 30% range), the Tories could hold on to power. Every seat matters.

 

Lisa Burton : Previously you have spoken about MPs having contracts of employment, which makes sense and would allow a lot more accountability. Do you think any of the other parties would consider backing it?

The simple answer is no. The main three parties would not back many of the policies, the political reforms, that we at True & Fair believe are essential to strengthening our democracy and making it fairer. These include no second jobs  including media shows), reforming the House of Lords to be a purely secondary chamber providing oversight, electoral reforms such as compulsory voting, reforms to political advertising and media ownership. They are even resistant to putting the Nolan Principles onto a legal footing. This was a major factor in my decision not to stand for Labour or the LibDems.

 

Valerie Chaplin : We are all working together to encourage more people to join the Rejoin movements and are struggling to engage the younger generation, especially as Brexit and the loss of freedom of movement, Erasmus etc. affects them the most. How do we resolve this?

Our experience is that young people are very exercised about Brexit and the damage being done to their options, opportunities, and security. If you strip out the over-45s from rejoin polls, over 70% of people under 45 want to rejoin. It is an utter betrayal of the younger generations by the main parties that they talk about rejoining being for future generations. How much more damage do they need to see? How many young people will they sacrifice with their cowardly leadership?

We engage with more young people than many other parties do, and they tell us they don’t feel anyone cares about them, that they have no voice, no representation. We have to find a different narrative, to emotionally engage with them, find different channels of communication. It was very evident at the recent National Rejoin March in London that our movement must pursue other ways of reaching young people. A very practical strategy is to get young people to speak to other young people.

If you, your family or your friends live in the Epsom, Ewell and Leatherhead constituency, and would like to help Gina out with her campaign, she would welcome your support on the ground. You can make contact with Gina’s team via her website – just click on the Volunteer button.

Next month

Annette Dittert is a German author, filmmaker, correspondent, and journalist and regular commentator on British politics. She has worked for ARD German TV since 2001, as a war correspondent in Poland, a senior correspondent in New York, and since 2008 as bureau chief in London. In 2019, Annette was awarded the title of “political journalist of the year” for her reporting on Brexit.

If you wish to submit a question for consideration, please send your question(s) to: enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Wednesday 8 November.

Sunak’s first year as prime minister in 46 seconds

Sunak’s first year as prime minister in 46 seconds

Oct 27, 2023 | Bylines, News

Is a 46 second video of Rishi Sunak’s achievements in a year of being PM perhaps a bit too long? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes for Yorkshire Bylines.

Have you seen our prime minister’s latest puff piece, celebrating his first year in office? No? Then, boy are you in for a treat!

At (thankfully) just 46 seconds long, it is a run-through of everything that “we’ve achieved” in the year since Rishi Sunak became PM. The list of so-called achievements scrolls past so fast as to be practically unreadable. Which is, perhaps, the point.

Feedback

In the first 24 hours after posting on X, Sunak’s video collected almost four million views. Surprisingly, it also recorded almost three million likes. What was less surprising was the responses. Having scrolled through all of them (so you don’t have to), I only found one short message of support. The ridicule, however, was widespread.

Caroline Lucas drew attention to Sunak’s many failures on climate change, described by Sunak as a “new approach to net zero”. Others criticised Sunak for “gaslighting”, cried “shame on you”, called him a “clown”, or much worse, while others drew attention to his many failures or simply scoffed at his ridiculous claims.

Sunak’s so-called achievements

Amongst Sunak’s claims were a list of things the government have banned (XL bully dogs, nitrous oxide, strikes in school, protest), plus a list of spurious claims, such as record levels of NHS funding, falling crime and a million new homes. Funny but, despite extensive research, I can only find reference to a Sunak commitment, made in July, to build one million homes before the end of this parliament. Surely, had that goal been achieved, we’d have heard a lot about it, and no doubt had a special PM video celebrating the fact.

Many of Sunak’s so-called achievements haven’t even happened yet. His “long term decisions for a brighter future” included a “long-term NHS workforce plan”, “expanding childcare” and a “smoke free generation”. I’m not sure exactly how long Sunak thinks the Conservatives are going to remain in power, but it certainly isn’t long-term. His own stay in power might be even shorter, now his Conservative colleagues are free to submit letters of no confidence to the 1922 committee

The five priorities

When Sunak spoke of his five priorities in his New Year’s speech, he called on the British public to “trust” him. He claimed his five pledges would “deliver peace of mind — five foundations, on which to build a better future for our children and grandchildren”. Not only that, he was going to be “straining every sinew” in order to achieve his goals.

The first of those pledges – halving inflation – was expected to happen anyway over the following 12 months, with or without any government actions. As for the other four pledges, Sunak and his government seem to have made matters worse, rather than better.

The second and third pledges – growing the economy and reducing debt – are not going to plan. While there has been some recent improvement in the UK economy, the IMF are still predicting just 0.5% growth in 2023 – the second worst in the G7. As for reducing debt, the level of UK debt has actually risen to the highest levels in 60 years, and in June passed 100% of GDP for the first time since 1961.

 

Sunak’s fourth pledge – cutting waiting lists – for the NHS, has proved to be another epic failure. Just this month, the waiting list in England alone hit a record high of 7.75 million people awaiting treatment (as at the end of August). With further strikes likely in the medical sector thanks to the government’s intransigence on pay, this is only likely to get worse.

The final pledge – stopping the boats – has also failed miserably, with record numbers of desperate migrants risking their lives to cross the Channel. According to Migration Watch UK, the Home Office is expecting the numbers for 2023 to reach 85,000 by the end of the year. Not only would that set a new record high but is roughly equivalent to the total number of arrivals between 2018 and 2022. And all as a direct consequence of Brexit and this government’s policies.

In his video, the prime minister admits that “there’s so much more to do”. Whether he, or his government, are given the opportunity to do more good, or harm, seems increasingly unlikely. The video ends with the question “so what can a country achieve in 52 weeks?” and ends with the words “watch this space”. Well, we’ve been watching, and it seems that the only thing Sunak can celebrate after a year in office is outlasting his predecessor. I doubt there are many, except the delusional few, that honestly believe we can expect anything more from this PM, or this government. They’ve had 13 years, and the evidence of their damage is everywhere you look. But don’t expect to see that in any videos.

‘Hard man of Brexit’ Steve Baker changes his mind

‘Hard man of Brexit’ Steve Baker changes his mind

Oct 26, 2023 | Bylines, News

Steve Baker MP has declared that future referendums should require a super majority to be enacted – so why the sudden change of heart? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes for Yorkshire Bylines.

Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker has been sharing his thoughts on referendums with the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The self-proclaimed ‘hard man of Brexit’ told the assembly that the Brexit referendum “probably should have been a supermajority” requiring 60% voter support. That’s despite his having voted against an SNP amendment to the EU referendum bill in 2015 calling for just that. He added that it would not be advisable, in any future vote on Irish unification, to accept a “50% plus one” decision.

We’d have lost

Baker was a prominent figure in the Leave campaign in the run up to the Brexit referendum and an active ‘Brexit Spartan’ in its aftermath. Despite Theresa May’s hard red lines on Brexit, Baker voted against her deal three times, presumably because it wasn’t hard enough. He later told Newsnight that “holding those tigers by the tail”, between 2016 and 2019, had cost him his mental health. Much of the country felt the same way. Many of us still do.

Baker suggested that not having a supermajority threshold had caused the country serious political “trouble”. Indeed. But he failed to mention the government’s seeming willingness to stir up that division, to spread misinformation, and to fail to have any implementation plan whatsoever.

He admitted that had there been a supermajority in the Brexit referendum, “we’d have lost and we’d still be in (the EU)”. But at least “everybody would have abided by the result”, including the government, presumably. He added that it was “inconceivable” that we would have had “all of the political difficulty which followed from members of parliament in particular refusing to accept the result”.

 

Referendum “met the threshold for illegality”

Baker failed, of course, to mention that those refusing to accept the result, politicians or no, were raising other important issues when “refusing to accept the result”. Such as the outrageous promises and outright lies of the Leave campaign. Or the fact that, according to Sir James Eadie QC, Theresa May’s legal counsel, the referendum “met the threshold for illegality”.

 

In my 2019 court case – ‘Wilson and others versus the Prime Minister’ – I challenged the government over the legality of the referendum result. With the referendum being merely advisory, rules that would have applied had the result been binding, did not apply.

Had the referendum been legally binding, parliament would have had “a statutory legal mechanism by which it would be annulled”, as they do with elections. So, the government, and Baker presumably, knew the referendum result to be illegal but decided to proceed regardless, and with no idea how to do so. While David Cameron had promised to honour the result, that was before the illegality was fully known or understood. And in any case, he didn’t hang around long enough to honour anything.

 

An ulterior motive?

I don’t doubt that Baker is sincere in hoping to ensure that, in the event of a vote on the unification of Ireland, a supermajority threshold be required. Not only would it give the result legitimacy, but it would make it easier for the public, and the politicians, to get behind the outcome. It might also make the unification of Ireland a more difficult goal to achieve – a factor that may be influencing Baker’s thinking.

Baker says that had 60% of the voting public decided to leave the EU in 2016, the road to Brexit, even with the Conservatives in charge, would have been smoother and the country less divided. Whether to ensure legitimacy or prevent division, there will be those arguing for a supermajority in the event of any future referendum on rejoining the EU. No doubt hard man Baker and his fellow Spartans will be amongst them.

But, even if the hard man of Brexit has now gone soft on democracy, it’s hard not to conclude that he has an ulterior motive – one that will ensure that his beloved Brexit is secure. He’s known all along that a supermajority is a much tougher threshold to achieve. Which is why he voted against it 2015.

EU races ahead on asylum and immigration deal

EU races ahead on asylum and immigration deal

Oct 6, 2023 | Bylines, News

In anticipation of natural disasters and war, the EU has agreed plans to deal with the inevitable displacement of the vulnerable, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

On Wednesday, the EU sealed a historic deal on the future management of asylum seekers in the event of sudden rises in migrant numbers. The Crisis Regulation – which was three years in the making – met with opposition from Hungary and Poland and saw Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Austria abstaining. The deal aims to prevent a repeat of 2015 when an influx of a million refugees, mostly from war-torn Syria, were unevenly distributed across EU member states.

With the objective of sharing the weight of asylum seekers across the bloc, the preliminary agreement has still to be passed by the European Parliament. However, the agreement was warmly welcomed by President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who described it as a “real game changer” that would allow negotiations in the European Parliament to advance. Fernando Grande-Marlaska Gómez, acting Spanish minister for home affairs said, “we are now in a better position to reach an agreement on the entire asylum and migration pact with the European Parliament by the end of this semester.”

 

The Crisis Regulation

The new rules will allow the fast-tracking of asylum applications that will facilitate the movement of migrants to other European countries. In times of crisis – such as climate emergencies, natural disasters or war – an accelerated registration process will see the necessary paperwork completed in just four weeks. The responsibility for examining and processing the asylum claim would then fall to the supporting member state.

Member states will be allowed to apply tougher measures while asylum claims are being examined. Those measures could include allowing asylum seekers to be held at the border for up to 20 weeks. Rejected applicants could also be held for up to 20 weeks before the process of returning them is completed.

Where the agreement falls short – according to Guy Verhofstaft, MEP – is in failing to open European embassies and consulates outside of the EU to asylum applications. Doing so, Verhofstadt says, was the “only way to stop smugglers” and to prevent refugees from “dying in the Mediterranean Sea”.

UK inaction despite awareness

According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, environmental change, conflict and civil unrest could result in over one billion people at threat of being displaced by 2050. In regard to the climate crisis alone, the UK government recently published a paper detailing how the crisis is likely to increase migrant flow over the coming decades. In it they stated that, “while there is no agreed upon way of reliably forecasting future flows of migration which result directly from climate change, the numbers are likely to be significant”.

An earlier government paper – Preparing for climate change – discusses the impact of climate change in the UK and actions that will be necessary to deal with the challenges. Yet, despite obviously being well aware of the impact of global warming on migrant numbers, and on the UK in particular, the government are kicking the climate crisis can down the road. The only discernible ‘policy’ on migration seems to be to scream ‘stop the boats’ enough times at full volume and hope for the best.

 

EU getting on with business

While our own government seem intent only on jockeying for position, arguing amongst themselves and focusing on the coming election, we can only watch from the sidelines at progress being made in Europe. The EU, without the UK, is getting on with business. And perhaps some of that business is more easily conducted without us.

Today, leaders from 47 countries are gathering in Granada, Spain for a meeting of the European Political Community. This group – which includes EU member states, the UK, Ukraine and western Balkan states – first met last October in the Czech Republic. The agenda for this third EPC summit will include aid for Ukraine, deepening conflicts on the continent, and migration.

It is an opportunity for Britain to mend some fences and discuss common solutions to shared problems. I suspect, instead, our government will be trying to share their own divisive, right-wing rhetoric on immigration to a largely non-receptive audience.

As European leaders gather, Rishi Sunak will likely take every opportunity to be photographed at Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s side. Indeed, he wouldn’t be the first British PM to do so. No doubt Sunak will offer help and support to the war effort, and mean it. But in doing so, he might be hoping the Ukrainian president doesn’t mention support for refugees. There is a limit, after all!