Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
No. Theresa May would say she can't negotiate with her hands tied behind her back. She would have to go for a GE.
But it's very unlikely because I can't see there being 26 MPs who will rebel when it comes to the crunch.
Lord Bridges (Govt spokesman): "Govt cannot possibly accept amendment".
I think it's very unlikely - but IF Con rebels stop Govt overturning in Commons then that must mean GE right now.
I don't really see this. The government would just have to accept the amendment. All the same arguments in the thread header would apply if they tried to use it as a pretext for an election.
No. Theresa May would say she can't negotiate with her hands tied behind her back. She would have to go for a GE.
But it's very unlikely because I can't see there being 26 MPs who will rebel when it comes to the crunch.
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
I really feel for Mrs May. ....Tough gig.
Alternatively May could have taken the time since she was elected Tory leader and PM to prepare the country for the likely problems of Brexit and achieve some level of consensus and support for the path ahead.
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
Instead of spending the first month or two of her Premiership ignoring the 48% of the nation who voted Remain, and licking the backsides of the deranged Tory Right, why didn't May try to build consensus about the plan? She would probably have got enough of the country to go with an EFTA/EEA solution. Now she is going to look like a prize clot if we end us with a shite/nonexistent deal. And she will also cock up the economy. Get rid of her and Corbyn and let Ozzy and Chuka and some other grown ups sort out the mess.
The powerful and imaginative physicist Richard Feynman lost his beloved first wife, Arline, to TB during WWII. During his eventful subsequent life one of her comments stayed with him. It was: "What do you care what other people think?"
TBF, her excuse is very valid - that she spends most of her time with him talking about his children.
I know both Q and Charlotte very well - and Q *does* spend most of his time talking about his kids!
It's an embarrassing oversight, but really it's a storm in a teacup. It's not as though her brother's job is exactly a secret, so she wasn't hiding anything. The MPs seemed to be grandstanding over it.
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
I really feel for Mrs May. ....Tough gig.
Alternatively May could have taken the time since she was elected Tory leader and PM to prepare the country for the likely problems of Brexit and achieve some level of consensus and support for the path ahead.
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
Traitors aren't people.
Just because someone has a different view to you, it doesn't make them a non-person.
Instead of spending the first month or two of her Premiership ignoring the 48% of the nation who voted Remain, and licking the backsides of the deranged Tory Right, why didn't May try to build consensus about the plan? She would probably have got enough of the country to go with an EFTA/EEA solution. Now she is going to look like a prize clot if we end us with a shite/nonexistent deal. And she will also cock up the economy. Get rid of her and Corbyn and let Ozzy and Chuka and some other grown ups sort out the mess.
Since May revealed her plans the public has given very large approval to all of her proposals. I see no evidence that the public would prefer either Ozzy or Chuka.
Not to forget that given the full backing of government Ozzy has already failed to persuade the public to back him.
The Tory manifesto and the government leaflet promised a referendum, the result of which would be enacted. There is no justification to revisit the general principle for 2020, by which we'll be out.
If you want to rejoin, campaign for it. Good luck.
If for any reason we're not out by 2020, or whenever the next election falls, then it's legitimate to campaign in that General Election on a platform of not leaving, and the result of that election would supersede the referendum.
Which party would campaign on that platform, and get itself elected?
Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition under a non Corbyn leader. It's not that unthinkable.
It doesn't exude thinkability. Even if it happened, the consequences would be anyone's guess. We would certainly need the Supreme Court to tell us what they are.
Incidentally, we changed the HoL judicial committee into the Supreme Court in the nick of time; it would be seriously head-doing-in if we had to distinguish between what the House of Lords had said about Brexit, and what the House of Lords had said about it.
If there is an election before brexit is complete, the negotiations aren't going well and labour have a competent leader I would say maybe 50% chance that conservatives do not get an overall majority.
If a government is voted in on a mandate of bremainafterall (might not catch on) then their job would be to go to EU countries... Can we ignore that whole letter thing/pretend it got lost in the post? If they all agreed then no problem and no need to involve Supreme Court.
Chances of all that happening? Probably less than 3%...
So I've only been vaguely following this Wiggins and British cycling stuff the last few months, but is it the case that, whoops, turns out cycling is still pretty bloody dodgy?
yes all that moonshine about how they had discovered the magic formula was indeed very true and the public were funding it as well.
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
I really feel for Mrs May. ....Tough gig.
Alternatively May could have taken the time since she was elected Tory leader and PM to prepare the country for the likely problems of Brexit and achieve some level of consensus and support for the path ahead.
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
Traitors aren't people.
As the thug said to the Swiss-based international banker...
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
TBF, her excuse is very valid - that she spends most of her time with him talking about his children.
I know both Q and Charlotte very well - and Q *does* spend most of his time talking about his kids!
It's an embarrassing oversight, but really it's a storm in a teacup. It's not as though her brother's job is exactly a secret, so she wasn't hiding anything. The MPs seemed to be grandstanding over it.
And it seems to be a paperwork issue. Everyone at the BofE knew about it - it's just she hadn't filled in the right form when they checked.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
The latter seems much more likely to cause troubles than Lords amendments. If the Commons sends the bill back unamended, what the Lords then decide to do will be a signifier on how 'mad' they are. After all, it is possible some voted for the amendments in part on the basis they expect the Commons to overturn it.
Instead of spending the first month or two of her Premiership ignoring the 48% of the nation who voted Remain, and licking the backsides of the deranged Tory Right, why didn't May try to build consensus about the plan? She would probably have got enough of the country to go with an EFTA/EEA solution. Now she is going to look like a prize clot if we end us with a shite/nonexistent deal. And she will also cock up the economy. Get rid of her and Corbyn and let Ozzy and Chuka and some other grown ups sort out the mess.
Since May revealed her plans the public has given very large approval to all of her proposals. I see no evidence that the public would prefer either Ozzy or Chuka.
Not to forget that given the full backing of government Ozzy has already failed to persuade the public to back him.
The public gave full backing because they have been told it would be all plain sailing. We will see.
That's quite an oversight....Can't quite make excuse of trying to remember if you met somebody months ago or not.
TBF, her excuse is very valid - that she spends most of her time with him talking about his children.
I know both Q and Charlotte very well - and Q *does* spend most of his time talking about his kids!
Just your usual nepotism and small elite hogging the trough , nothing unusual about it.
Actually Charlotte is unbelievably smart and well educated. She is supremely qualified for the job - she is deservedly a high flier based on effort and capability
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
I really feel for Mrs May. ....Tough gig.
Alternatively May could have taken the time since she was elected Tory leader and PM to prepare the country for the likely problems of Brexit and achieve some level of consensus and support for the path ahead.
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
Traitors aren't people.
Should people who abandon their country be termed as traitors ?
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
The latter seems much more likely to cause troubles than Lords amendments. If the Commons sends the bill back unamended, what the Lords then decide to do will be a signifier on how 'mad' they are. After all, it is possible some voted for the amendments in part on the basis they expect the Commons to overturn it.
Sure, but it all feeds into the fantasy which some EU politicians are indulging in, that the UK government is out on a limb and therefore they don't need to have a sensible negotiation.
This is partly Theresa May's fault, for leaving a vacuum between the referendum and Article 50, into which hot air has leaked.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
But what does it even mean? What is a "meaningful vote"?
TBF, her excuse is very valid - that she spends most of her time with him talking about his children.
I know both Q and Charlotte very well - and Q *does* spend most of his time talking about his kids!
It's an embarrassing oversight, but really it's a storm in a teacup. It's not as though her brother's job is exactly a secret, so she wasn't hiding anything. The MPs seemed to be grandstanding over it.
I disagree. It shows a casualness about reporting requirements that implies she thinks they're just for the little people. If these things are unimportant they should be scrapped. If they are important her failing should have real consequences.
Yep - parliament is indeed sovereign. I hope all sides will acknowledge this point no matter the bill that eventually passes for royal assent at the end of the full process, for that will be what PARLIAMENT has decreed.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
366 foolish virtue signallers.
Flood the Lords, Mrs. May. Do it.
Edit: P.S. I'm waiting by my phone, just in case.
How precisely?
How to do it? By creating hundreds of Tory lords.
How am I waiting by my phone? Well, it is sat next to me
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
But what does it even mean? What is a "meaningful vote"?
A meaningless vote is take it or leave it: accept the deal or crash out on WTO. A meaningful vote would be one which sent the government back to the negotiating table or even conceivably kept us in the EU if no satisfactory deal was available.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
But what does it even mean? What is a "meaningful vote"?
I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.
I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
Instead of spending the first month or two of her Premiership ignoring the 48% of the nation who voted Remain, and licking the backsides of the deranged Tory Right, why didn't May try to build consensus about the plan? She would probably have got enough of the country to go with an EFTA/EEA solution. Now she is going to look like a prize clot if we end us with a shite/nonexistent deal. And she will also cock up the economy. Get rid of her and Corbyn and let Ozzy and Chuka and some other grown ups sort out the mess.
She would not have got the majority of her party certainly, every poll has shown Tory voters put immigration control over full single market access and UKIP voters even more so. Most likely she eventually agrees a job offer requirement which will not go far enough for hardcore Leavers but is the most she could get past her party
This isn't a minor oversight. It's a failure to give cursory thought to the requirement.
Of course by definition it's a failure, and an embarassing one, which is why she immediately went back to the Select Committee and corrected what she had told them. However, it's also a failure with clearly no improper motive, and with zero consequences, given that as @Charles said, everyone at the BoE already knew about her brother's job.
As for cursory thought to the requirement, it's hard to comment, because maybe the form wasn't very clear as to the requirement. It might have been worded by a lawyer, for example.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
But what does it even mean? What is a "meaningful vote"?
I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.
I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
Implying that the negotiators aren't going to seek the best deal in the first place.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
But what does it even mean? What is a "meaningful vote"?
I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.
I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
Its all a fuss about nothing really. If there is no deal and May proposes that we crash out on WTO terms there will be a massive political crisis. It is inconceivable that parliament will not be involved.
It shows a casualness about reporting requirements that implies she thinks they're just for the little people.
What conceivable grounds have you got for that? Do you know her to be arrogant and dismissive of the 'little people'?
Such a gross failure speaks for itself.
I know her and she is nothing like your caricature. Equally she hasn't emailed me since this morning so I suppose something could have changed in the interim.
I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
How the hell does that work, when the Article 50 clock is running?
Your comment, and the speeches of some of the noble lords, seem to be entirely divorced from reality. This is not like a Managing Director negotiating to buy another company, and seeking approval to go ahead with it from his board - with the possibility of walking away if they don't give their approval. The 'walk away' option is that we crash out with no deal, whatever parliament instructs her to do.
I don't buy what Fillon has said, which is that it's the left that's behind it. Dupont-Aignan has pointed the finger at Hollande. BS to that.
Fillon has got little chance, even if he's pronounced as clean as a whistle on Wednesday. Similarly it didn't do Clinton much good when the head of the FBI exonerated her shortly after saying he wanted to feel her collar. This is like the US Republican primaries, when the Trump campaign systematically took out the opposition one at a time. Macron has been accused of misusing public money too. But the focus is on Fillon. Macron will be next to face big flak.
A lot of the souverainism versus globalism show is very arse about tits. It's the cosseted énarque elite resisting Le Pen, and currently backing Macron - an absurd candidate in some ways - who in a sense are standing up for (their) France, and Le Pen who represents some kind of globalism.
I have a theory. People want more nationalistic, less globalist policies, but aren't convinced by - with some exceptions - the people selling those visions.
I think this is a problem that a lot of right wing (generally) parties have, where people like the policies when they are told about them in the abstract, but when they are told the policy is a Conservative one, they suddenly don't like it.
Marine Le Pen has tried to get away from this by barely mentioning the FN in her campaign. But she is still saddled with the fact that her father - who was until recently the President of the FN - called the Holocaust "a detail", and who explicitly blamed France's problems on the Jews. The fact that the FN has repeatedly underperformed its poll shares also reinforces this point: French voters want many of the FN's policies, but aren't keen enough yet on giving them the keys to the Elysee.
For that reason, I suspect that - if Macron makes it to the final two - that he will comfortably beat MLP this time around. Of course, if France continues to stagnate, then 2022 will be the FN's to lose. But if France enjoys a cyclical economic upturn in the next five years (and you should never underestimate the power of the economic cycle), then she may have missed her best chance.
* In the case of the Netherlands there was also a big disconnect over issues like the Euro, where more than half of PVV supporters agreed with the statement "The Euro has been good for the Netherlands", despite a return to the Guilder being PVV policy.
No it doesn't. You have completely unfairly attributed to her motives of arrogance.
This isn't a minor oversight. It's a failure to give cursory thought to the requirement.
She was asked if she had any conflicts of interest. Q has a mid level job in Barclays (it's really not some important position) and he never talks about work. She would have a much bigger conflict (at the time) from her shares in Santander which was disclosed. I can see how she just wouldn't have regarded it as a conflict
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
But what does it even mean? What is a "meaningful vote"?
I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.
I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
Because she'd likely get a better deal in the first place without this constraint.
I'm not a great fan of the way the lords are appointed but anyone has to have more judgement than the morons of Hartlepool. Cameron was a worse PM than Brown as history will attest.....talking of which
Very interesting PM this afternoon. 2 Labour advisors saying that Brown not calling an election in 2008 was a mistake they think about every single day. If would almost certainly have won the next two elections Cameron would not have been PM and the history of the UK would have been very different. They both made the mistake of thinking they had plenty of time to think about it but then came the banking crisis and everything changed overnight.
They strongly advised May to go for it. If Brexit goes wrong she'll have plenty of time for regrets
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It seems quite hard to find the exact text. I'd be grateful if you could provide a definitive source.
Heseltine should be strung up. All the nonsense he pulled under Thatcher, and now he's trying to undermine May. Am I being unfair in making these associations, or in making my (very low) judgement of the man?
We have to leave if only because the process is as you describe. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone that suggests we should instantly think about rejoining though. In my view this is what Farron and co. should be arguing for.
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It seems quite hard to find the exact text. I'd be grateful if you could provide a definitive source.
Heseltine should be strung up. All the nonsense he pulled under Thatcher, and now he's trying to undermine May. Am I being unfair in making these associations, or in making my (very low) judgement of the man?
We have to leave if only because the process is as you describe. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone that suggests we should instantly think about rejoining though. In my view this is what Farron and co. should be arguing for.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It seems quite hard to find the exact text. I'd be grateful if you could provide a definitive source.
Heseltine should be strung up. All the nonsense he pulled under Thatcher, and now he's trying to undermine May. Am I being unfair in making these associations, or in making my (very low) judgement of the man?
We have to leave if only because the process is as you describe. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone that suggests we should instantly think about rejoining though. In my view this is what Farron and co. should be arguing for.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
A50 has to be triggered, and there's no reason to suppose that the process doesn't then get into full swing. If the LDs (or anyone else) want us in the EU after that then its a negotiation to join the EU - of course if we're halfway through leaving then a lot of that can stop, but it does in my view require us to join something that we won't then be a member of. I don't really see it happening, but if it did then I'm sure it'd be a very different EU to the one we're about to leave.
I'm in good company if Lord Lawson thinks that by far and away the most likely outcome is that there will be no deal.
Car crash Brexit is coming.
Certainly it's looking that way, and the risk is much increased by these debates.
I really feel for Mrs May. ....Tough gig.
Alternatively May could have taken the time since she was elected Tory leader and PM to prepare the country for the likely problems of Brexit and achieve some level of consensus and support for the path ahead.
Instead she has spent several months spouting nonsense about red, white and blue Brexit, Brexit meaning Brexit, and attacking people as citizens of nowhere.
Traitors aren't people.
Sometimes they are the most decent of people.I think of Claus Von Stauffenberg and anybody who puts the good of humanity before loyalty to a state guided by evil.
Comments
He said it would stop Govt negotiating effectively.
Lord Bridges is the Govt spokesman - he is speaking directly on behalf of Theresa May.
Completely impossible for Theresa May to then go into negotiations on that basis so soon afterwards.
Out of the question.
I know both Q and Charlotte very well - and Q *does* spend most of his time talking about his kids!
Not to forget that given the full backing of government Ozzy has already failed to persuade the public to back him.
If a government is voted in on a mandate of bremainafterall (might not catch on) then their job would be to go to EU countries... Can we ignore that whole letter thing/pretend it got lost in the post? If they all agreed then no problem and no need to involve Supreme Court.
Chances of all that happening? Probably less than 3%...
Very similar to defeat on EU nationals.
Of course, she will reverse this nonsense in the Commons, but even so I fear this won't end well - and that's without even considering the very high risk of crazy MEPs torpedoing any deal which the grown-ups are able to reach.
Flood the Lords, Mrs. May. Do it.
Edit: P.S. I'm waiting by my phone, just in case.
This is partly Theresa May's fault, for leaving a vacuum between the referendum and Article 50, into which hot air has leaked.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/839184299756765190
Has anyone here ever not made a mistake on a form? Let he without sin cast the first stone.
How am I waiting by my phone? Well, it is sat next to me
Just asking...
I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
As for cursory thought to the requirement, it's hard to comment, because maybe the form wasn't very clear as to the requirement. It might have been worded by a lawyer, for example.
Your comment, and the speeches of some of the noble lords, seem to be entirely divorced from reality. This is not like a Managing Director negotiating to buy another company, and seeking approval to go ahead with it from his board - with the possibility of walking away if they don't give their approval. The 'walk away' option is that we crash out with no deal, whatever parliament instructs her to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2012
It says that
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
Very interesting PM this afternoon. 2 Labour advisors saying that Brown not calling an election in 2008 was a mistake they think about every single day. If would almost certainly have won the next two elections Cameron would not have been PM and the history of the UK would have been very different. They both made the mistake of thinking they had plenty of time to think about it but then came the banking crisis and everything changed overnight.
They strongly advised May to go for it. If Brexit goes wrong she'll have plenty of time for regrets
Heseltine should be strung up. All the nonsense he pulled under Thatcher, and now he's trying to undermine May. Am I being unfair in making these associations, or in making my (very low) judgement of the man?
We have to leave if only because the process is as you describe. I have no objection whatsoever to anyone that suggests we should instantly think about rejoining though. In my view this is what Farron and co. should be arguing for.