Why are we leaving?

The Guardian is reporting that May has received “secret” information saying that MPs could stop Brexit if it was thought to be not in the national interest.

This one whitewave? Theresa May under pressure over ‘secret advice’ on halting Brexit

Exporters might well be panicking tonight when they look at the disaster about to hit the Bombardier wing plant in N Ireland. Someone remind me of the rhetoric about what a great trading partner the US will be for us.

I would hope that all negotiators are listening to the 'rumours' that Macron and Merkel don't want Barnier to make a success of the talks as this would make him the glory boy thereby making him Junckers successor, something that Macron and Merkel don't want.
If it's all spin, who can believe who? Least of all Barnier. If it's true Merkel had made a serious mistake by jumping into bed ( figuratively speaking) with Macron. Not only German business will be furious, but so will European leaders.

Re the Guardian article, it doesn't seem that she has received 'secret advice' on reading it, more that she has kept legal advice secret. It is interesting that the DExEU spokesperson did not answer the question about whether it was legal and therefore perfectly possible to withdraw the article 50 notification but only said it was their firm policy, that the notification will not be withdrawn.

If this government continues to treat us as children I may resort to "liar, liar pants on fire" - obviously not - but what will happen is the party careering in this direction, because in the tyranny of the majority, will never be trusted as these details will come out in time.

I'm glad that you've reviewed this question of 'ever closer union' GG. Earlier this week I decided to investigate the principle of 'federalism' as so many Leavers have expressed their distaste for, and dislike of, the idea of a federal Europe.

Firstly I found this 2014 Guardian article by the late Charles Kennedy:
European 'federalism' isn't what you've been told it is

This term is key to the EU debate, yet politicians and the media cynically equate it with the imposition of a European superstate

...it is hard to maintain any meaningful discourse when the political vocabulary being employed by both sides means different things to different players in different places.

Nowhere is this more true than where the words "federal" and "federalism" are concerned. ... I was in Strasbourg, speaking at the Council of Europe on its ground-breaking report into the future of its troublesome cousin, the EU. Needless to say, the British government officially didn't see much point to this exercise. This despite the fact that the council, comprising 47 countries and 800 million citizens, predates the original common market by quite some way, being formed in the aftermath of the second world war to guard and promote human rights through the European convention and the European court. Its membership (the Russians are suspended) is drawn from all national legislatures involved and deserves a hearing, a sentiment with which our prime minister must surely sympathise.

What struck me more than ever was the extent to which the political meaning of federalism has been twisted and caricatured out of all recognition in what passes for British political debate on matters European these days. The true (continental as well as North American) definition was well summed up by Andreas Gross, the Swiss socialist under whose name the report was published. I doubt that even the most arch-Tory Eurosceptic could take exception to his front-cover summation: "Rather than constituting a model for an ever closer political union or a European state, federalism implies a process of balancing power in a differentiated political order which enables unity while guaranteeing diversity."

Most continental politicians would at one and the same time recognise, approve of and wish to apply that definition. Yet "federalism", in the context of political and media usage in Britain, has come to mean the creation and imposition of a European superstate, one centralised in Brussels. Two generations of opportunistic British journalists and politicians alike must shoulder the blame for such wilful misinterpretation and misuse.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/european-federalism-eu-debate-superstate

'subsidarity' is mentioned in most of your extracts GG. I suspect that very few people actually know what it means. Here's a definition: Subsidiarity is the principle of allowing the individual members of a large organization to make decisions on issues that affect them, rather than leaving those decisions to be made by the whole group

Then I found an book chapter on federalism and the EU (which I doubt that many people will want to read as it is long and academic. Note that it is by a US academic, before anyone starts accusing the author of bias (though bias is a bit of a sin in academia where objectivity is paramount)

I can't copy from this chapter as it's a scan rather than a printed document bu here is a review of it:

Moravcsik attacks the view, shared by Euro‐enthusiasts and Euro‐sceptics alike, that current developments in the EU herald the advent of a European federal state; according to Moravcsik, the EU lacks and is likely to continue to lack the fundamental competences that would make it federal. To make this point, Moravcsik emphasizes what the EU does not do and is unlikely to take on in the foreseeable future, spelling out how the ‘EU plays almost no role—at most a weak sort of international coordination—in most of the issue‐areas about which European voters care most, such as taxation, social welfare provision, defence, high foreign policy, policing, education, cultural policy, human rights, and small business policy’. Moravcsik finds this not surprising, since the EU's built‐in ‘constitutional constraints’, from fiscal to legislative and regulatory powers, create a strong bias towards the status quo.

www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/federalism.pdf

Federal,meaning: www.thefreedictionary.com/federal

Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers

Thank you for that Maizie -very interesting article.

It would seem that it is another case of lost in translation! Our French teacher calls them 'false friends' - when words sound very similar and are often spelt almost the same but mean different things. The only one which springs immediately to mind this Sunday morning is attendre - sounds very like the English word to attend but in fact means to wait.
The explanation of what the Europeans mean by Federal is much less sinister that the spin put on it by British Govts but that would not have served the same purpose.
As it says in the article often these words have been misused on purpose for the benefit of the argument. You cannot expect people who have not done a language since they were about 14 to remember the meanings of all words they encountered.

Thank you MaizieD for that extract on the interpretation of federalism. It sheds light on one of those “mysterious” (for me) British political mantras .
Let’s hope people will have the courage of questioning some of their convictions and accept that being human is also to admit error and change of mind. ..

Words are extremely important. Just ask people what other 10 words the word “ family or religion “ mean to them. We all have our own “culture”.

Of course, in the UK anti-EU discourse there is frequently a subtext to the issue of federalism. That this mythical superstate will be under the sole control of Germany, our hated opponent in 2 World Wars. I wonder how many generations it will take for the British to get over this?

yes and for us not to forget that an ever closer union was to stop us ever going to war with each other again and to stop the rise of fascism or the far right. So far we have been protected - the far right has never caused us such a threat until now. It was not for nothing that Winston Churchill declared in 1948 ‘We cannot aim at anything less than the Union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that Union will be achieved.’

So the United Kingdom is not a federation yet, because there is not a separate England government, despite EVEL.
If we had a separate England government with the same rights as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, outside of London, of course, would brexiteers then want to leave the United Kingdom, just as they want to leave the EU?

I always thing it is interesting that anyone who knows France and the French would think for one minute that they would accept a lessening of their status as a nation to be swept up into the "European superstate" notion.
The idea of "patrimoine" is so strong here and the French are, in my opinion, much more patriotic in their daily lives than the British. Although it is slowly changing, most still drive French cars; for an overwhelming majority French cuisine is the only possible way of cooking, French wine the best in the world etc etc.
I suspect what is really happening is that people who supported Brexit are slowly recognising how difficult and damaging a path it is and in a fine display of cognitive dissonance are trying to justify their decision to leave by talking up the (mostly imaginary) dangers of the future of the EU.
There certainly does not seem much willingness to engage in debate about the practical implications of Brexit.

The British can't drive British cars because there aren't that many any more, and they are much more expensive than the French ones. (Mine's a Renault.)

I think this is funny. Two Tory MEPs voted against the government in a poll about the next step in brexit.

politicalscrapbook.net/2017/10/the-tories-are-making-such-a-mess-of-brexit-that-two-of-their-own-meps-sided-with-the-eu-in-key-vote/

Exactly Jen, but if patriotism had ensured a massive demand for more British cars....?

Did anyone notice that there is now a 300% tariff on Bombardier planes in the US, our best friend as far as trading in the future is concerned, as if 220% wasn't bad enough.

300% tariffs on imported cars, Mamie?

The main point I was trying to make was that all this talk of the imaginary horrors to come in the EU is displacement for thinking about the actual horrors of Brexit.

Clegg book might be worth a read -out next week I think

Whitewave wrote
"The Guardian is reporting that May has received “secret” information saying that MPs could stop Brexit if it was thought to be not in the national interest."
Wasn't this mentioned and discussed months ago? ie the referendum result was advisory, not legally binding?
Going round in circles.

I think is a bit different as it is confirmation from Queen’s Council.

Clegg is also writing about it, and is certainly something that we should bear in mind if (almost certainly) Brexit is a total disaster.

We need a let out clause and I think most in Europe understand it exists, which is why Macron said what he said.

That and the fact that it's possibly an illegal government because May didn't have the DUP's backing when she went to tell the queen she had a government makes me feel quite hopeful again.

The article in today's paper certainly takes this a step further in trying to uncover why May bowed to the tyranny of the very small majority. It won't tell us everything but it would be a case she has to answer - and about time too.

I would very happily pay into crowd-funding which uncovered and made the legal points clear - does anyone know if one exists.

The government is run by extreme capitalists who believe that nothing should fetter how capitalism works and will fight over the bodies of the old, the young, the poor, the less able and those in no position to create ANY capital for themselves to keep that mass of capital in their own hands. It is capital which keeps then nicely safe and very comfortable under such a lack of rules and regulations.

To expect people who watch while increasingly, companies create profit at the expense of the community, not creating profit that actually ultimately benefits the communities to behave in any way other than self-serving, in this case ignore the law to keep themselves in power, seems to me to be waiting for that mythical pig to fly over.

According to Andrew Rawnsley, the reason May is in the position she is in is because Nick Clegg turned down the position of home secretary. I bet he's regretting that now.