Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Larch]

[Richard Hakluyt]

The Guardian has a running commentary :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/oct/06/prevent-programme-should-be-reviewed-and-overhauled-says-terror-law-watchdog-politics-live

Apparently Woolfe is feeling a lot better and a CT scan shows no blood clot on the brain.

From the feed :

"A source close to the party said the fight happened when Mike Hookem, MEP, turned up to the Strasbourg meeting at 10am and "made a few choice words" to Woolfe about "defecting to the Tories".

"Steven Woolfe has then taken his jacket off, walked over and said, 'Right, you outside now' or words to that effect," the source told the Guardian. "They went outside and Steven Woolfe got the brunt of it."

It is understood that Woolfe walked away from the fight and appeared well enough to vote half an hour later. However, Woolfe left the vote mid-way through and then collapsed before he was taken to hospital.

The source added that Woolfe is thought to be conscious and recovering well to hospital treatment. Nathan Gill, his fellow MEP and a close friend, is at Woolfe's hospital bedside.

The source said he is concerned about what will happen next to both MEPs. "Steven was the aggressor but Hookem has hit him and I just know the way that will come across," the contact said."

Was it a left or a right hook that downed him though  ?

[garbon]

Speaking of UKIP

Speaking of what I had literally just posted?

[Syt]

 

[The Larch]

Non British academic? Your advice is not wanted anymore.

Government bars foreign academics from advising on Brexit
LSE informed that contributions from foreign experts on EU referendum matters will no longer be accepted

Leading foreign academics acting as expert advisers to the UK government have been told they will not be asked to contribute to government work and analysis on Brexit because they are not British nationals.

The news was met with outrage by many academics, while legal experts questioned whether it could be legal under anti-discrimination laws and senior politicians criticised it as bewildering.

"It is utterly baffling that the government is turning down expert, independent advice on Brexit simply because someone is from another country," said Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' EU spokesman.

"This is yet more evidence of the Conservatives' alarming embrace of petty chauvinism over rational policymaking."

Sara Hagemann, an assistant professor at the London School of Economics who specialises in EU policymaking processes, EU treaty matters, the role of national parliaments and the consequences of EU enlargements, said she had been told her services would not be required.

Asked to clarify whether she was responding to speeches at the Conservative party conference pledging tough new immigration controls, Hagemann, who is Danish, said she had been informed specifically that she would not be contributing to any further government Brexit work.

It is understood up to nine LSE academics specialising in EU affairs have been briefing the Foreign Office on Brexit issues, but the school was informed by a senior FCO official that submissions from non-UK citizens would no longer be accepted. Notes were subsequently sent to those in the group telling them of the instruction.

One of the group is understood to be a dual national, with citizenship of both the UK and another EU member state.

The Foreign Office was said to be concerned about the risk of sensitive material being exposed as article 50 negotiations over Britain's exit from the EU – and subsequent talks on its future trade and other relations with the bloc – start to get under way.

But Steve Peers, a professor of EU law at the University of Essex who has advised the government, said it should be "perfectly possible to get useful input from some of the best-qualified people in the country" without anything sensitive being revealed.

"I don't really get the security or sensitivity argument," he said. "Whatever the reasons, this will come across as hostile, narrow and xenophobic."

The Foreign Office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Legal experts questioned whether the FCO could be in breach of UK public procurement law by requiring the work be carried out by British nationals. Albert Sanchez Graells, a senior law lecturer at Bristol university, said it "definitely" would be if the work was in the context of a services contract.

Simon Cox, a migration lawyer at the Open Society Justice Initiative, said it might be possible for the government to legally restrict high-level advisers to British citizens, but added that the way the situation had been handled was "beyond disrespectful, and in a worryingly xenophobic context".

The LSE said in statement that the government regularly called on its academics for advice, adding: "We believe our academics, including non-UK nationals, have hugely valuable expertise which will be vital in this time of uncertainty around the UK's relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. Any changes to security measures are a matter for the UK government."

UK in a Changing Europe, a think-tank on UK-EU relations of which Hagemann is a senior fellow, said it believed there was "a more pressing need than ever before for academic expertise to inform the multitude of difficult decisions to be taken in connection with Brexit" and that it would continue to publish research "whatever the nationality of the author".

Separately, the Guardian has learned that another EU national – a migration specialist who asked not to be identified – was approached by a private recruitment firm for a Foreign Office post for which she was well qualified, but informed after several conversations that only British citizens would be eligible.

European academics, who make up about 15% of research and teaching staff at British universities, responded with dismay. Jan Eichhorn, a fellow in social policy at Edinburgh university, tweeted: "For the first time this makes me question whether it makes sense to continue working at a UK university as an EU policy-focussed academic."

The government has come under sustained fire over immigration since the Conservative conference when the home secretary, Amber Rudd, said it was considering requiring companies to declare the proportion of international staff in their workforce.

Ministers were said to want to see lists of companies published and those employers with the highest proportions of foreign staff "named and shamed" for not employing British people when they could.

Rudd, who was forced to defend herself on radio against allegations of xenophobia, also announced a crackdown on overseas students and work visas, and pledged to prevent migrants "taking jobs British people could do".

Theresa May was also accused after her conference speech of stoking anti-immigrant sentiment in the country by playing to fears about the impact of foreign workers on jobs and wages.

The prime minister said the EU referendum result legitimised a tougher line on immigration and some people did not like to admit that British workers could "find themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

[Valmy]

Good British advising jobs for good British academics.

[Ed Anger]

I like this new sassy UK.

[Tamas]

This Royal Prerogative thing is very interesting, I was not aware that a) it existed, and b) it pretty much seems to give the government the right to rule by decree if they so desire.

[mongers]

Ken Clarke doing some sterling work in the House of Commons yesterday. 

[Tamas]

In a SHOCKING development, the EU is not fond of the Brexiters' idea of keepng the advantages while throwing away the disadvantages:


Hard Brexit or no Brexit, says Tusk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077

[Zanza]

The idea of the Brexit supporters that the EU would somehow, out of enlightened economic interests, give the British a good trade deal is folly. They should have known better considering their own motivations were mainly political, not economic. And they'll find that their counterparts in Europe are also mainly motivated by politics, not economics. And that suggests we can expect a nasty divorce.

[The Larch]

Honest question, if after all this posturing it turns out that the UK would end up in a very disadvantaged position, would it be thinkable for May to say "on second thought, it's better if we stay in the EU, warts and all"?

[garbon]

The idea of the Brexit supporters that the EU would somehow, out of enlightened economic interests, give the British a good trade deal is folly. They should have known better considering their own motivations were mainly political, not economic. And they'll find that their counterparts in Europe are also mainly motivated by politics, not economics. And that suggests we can expect a nasty divorce.

So because UK acted petulant first, EU should too?

[Zanza]

The idea of the Brexit supporters that the EU would somehow, out of enlightened economic interests, give the British a good trade deal is folly. They should have known better considering their own motivations were mainly political, not economic. And they'll find that their counterparts in Europe are also mainly motivated by politics, not economics. And that suggests we can expect a nasty divorce.

So because UK acted petulant first, EU should too?

Will be, not should.

[Josquius]

Not so outright no. I mean. It's possible. But only in the Trump goes on a killing spree level of possibility.
The best alternative is the government comes back with a deal and let's us have a second referendum on whether to accept it or not. Which should be a win for no, let's remain.
Politically though.... things are a lot more dangerous. May is solidly entrenching herself with the right, she is tied to brexit  the tories thus far are managing to keep divided so the party as a whole isn't screwed, there could be hope..... but it's tough.
Bloody politics.