Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabinet, Labour, the EU, the Remainer rebels, the ERG - to fudge.
1. I don't expect the Government to lose any votes this week. 2. Parliament will then vanish for months (the European Parliament already has). 3. May and the EU will haggle away and produce an EEA in all but name with a non-binding agreement to discuss further how Britain will evolve to being more separate in due course. 4. A few more people will resign. Lots of people will make indignant speeches. 5. It will get through. Next March, we'll formally leave, with little practical change. 6. Talks on possible further steps will continue indefinitely. If and when there's a Tory leadership context, candidates will wax lyrical on how they'll handle the continuing talks, but that won't actually lead to anything very remarkable.
The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
I think that's probably right, although there is undoubtedly a non-negligible danger of a crisis.
I also think that the final deal, if it is based on the PM's proposal, will be broadly accepted. For all the indignation of 'Brexit in name only' etc etc, it's actually a hell of a lot more than that - no right to FoM, no CAP, no CFP, very limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, no participation in 'ever closer union', and so on. Sure, we'll follow EU rules on goods, but that was obvious from way back before the referendum, and who cares?
It's a bosh-up, of course, with a rather cumbersome Customs arrangement, and the City will be damaged, but both of those are manageable problems (I'm reasonably confident that the City will find some replacement ways of making money).
The big questions are whether the EU will play ball, and whether the UK parliament will cut off its nose to spite its face.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
Oh, okay, so what Leavers meant to say during the referendum was "No Deal is just project fear... unless of course there are some Remainers in government or the civil service, but there's no way that's going to happen, right guys? Haha", and they just forgot the second part?
Me? Are you kidding? Hey, I was with you all the time! That was beautiful! Did you see the way the Leavers fell into our trap? Ha ha!
When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit," she should have gone with it. She could have blamed Cameron for the lack of preparation, taken a year to seriously negotiate (the EU will always take as long as they're got) and then present the final plan to the EU (it's not a deal until it's been agreed) and then either go ahead or say "No deal can be agreed"
If Parliament disagrees, go back to the country and say basically "The MPs want a say in something that they agreed was up to the whole electorate. Back me or sack me."
For the first time in GE election history, I'd vote Tory (as a one-off probably).
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
The idea that the May plan in any form is going to be implemented is yet more cakeism. Its a plan that the government hasn't agreed intact, that parliament won't agree, that the commission can't agree, and even if the planets align and get all those passed all it takes is one of the 27 to shoot it dead - and France, Spain, Ireland amongst others are lined up line a world cup penalty shootout ready for a kick.
You can see how resigning when this was imposed may come to look like absolutely the right thing to have done, a few weeks down the line. The Chequers White Paper bought Theresa May a bit of time, but in the end it will prove to be as much use as a water-soluble life jacket to a drowning man....
Most of the recent posts have debated internal Tory politics. Not UK parliamentary politics. Not the commission. Not the internal politics of 27 other governments. All of them will look at the official UK position and see something that (a) is cake that crosses the lines of preserving inviolate the four freedoms and (b) something the government can't agree on never mind parliament.
The idea that the May plan in any form is going to be implemented is yet more cakeism. Its a plan that the government hasn't agreed intact, that parliament won't agree, that the commission can't agree, and even if the planets align and get all those passed all it takes is one of the 27 to shoot it dead - and France, Spain, Ireland amongst others are lined up line a world cup penalty shootout ready for a kick.
Three options: 1 Revoke Article 50 2 EEA 3 Crash out
There is no reason why these can't be put as a referendum - one option to remain, two options to leave. And its going to have to be a referendum as this government is trapped in office and this parliament is trapped in session, all terrified by threats of angry voters who simultaneously demand option 3 whilst denying the nature of option 3. Politically we can't revoke A50 so that's not an option even at the death faced with falling off the cliff. Which leaves EEA (rejected by both ZombieMay and Jezbollah) and falling off the cliff which is a default not a choice but still gets talked about like we'd be in control.
Get your cupboards stocked boys and girls. The meteor which wipes out the Conservative Party is looming large in the window...
The meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs was probably actually a comet - comets pack in far more kinetic energy due to their faster orbits
Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabin The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
I think that's probably right, although there is undoubtedly a non-negligible danger of a crisis.
I also think that the final deal, if it is based on the PM's proposal, will be broadly accepted. For all the indignation of 'Brexit in name only' etc etc, it's actually a hell of a lot more than that - no right to FoM, no CAP, no CFP, very limited jurisdiction of the ECJ, no participation in 'ever closer union', and so on. Sure, we'll follow EU rules on goods, but that was obvious from way back before the referendum, and who cares?
It's a bosh-up, of course, with a rather cumbersome Customs arrangement, and the City will be damaged, but both of those are manageable problems (I'm reasonably confident that the City will find some replacement ways of making money).
The big questions are whether the EU will play ball, and whether the UK parliament will cut off its nose to spite its face.
+1 I've often disagreed with you Richard, but I think you (and Nick) are spot on with this.
For all her faults, May might go down in history as having steered the least worst course through this.
Not in the short term she won't, and it is that which is preventing an agreement on this even if it is, indeed, the least worst course.
I appreciate what she is trying to do, even if she is wrong, but I don't know where this optimism about a deal, any deal, is coming from.
It's not about how adept the EU and gov might be at making fudge. It's about political realities and parliamentary arithmetic. Those give very little room for a deal.
But I must be off. If we had a 2 stage referendum I'd vote deal, then remain if deal was rejected. A deal at least gets to a point where the new political reality is about how much more we want to diverge, the parties can align on that. The other options just perpetuate the ongoing mess.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
"If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now."
Fantasy thinking again... It took 9 years to agree CETA. What on earth makes you think CETA Plus could have been done in 24 months?
Yes - I think the talk about constitutional crisis and impasse underestimate the ability of all concerned - May, the Cabinet, Labour, the EU, the Remainer rebels, the ERG - to fudge.
1. I don't expect the Government to lose any votes this week. 2. Parliament will then vanish for months (the European Parliament already has). 3. May and the EU will haggle away and produce an EEA in all but name with a non-binding agreement to discuss further how Britain will evolve to being more separate in due course. 4. A few more people will resign. Lots of people will make indignant speeches. 5. It will get through. Next March, we'll formally leave, with little practical change. 6. Talks on possible further steps will continue indefinitely. If and when there's a Tory leadership context, candidates will wax lyrical on how they'll handle the continuing talks, but that won't actually lead to anything very remarkable.
The public will divide into Indignant Leavers (20%), Revengeful Remainers (20%), and "Oh well let's move on as best we can" (60%).
A bit cynical, but IMO much more likely than a fully-fledged crisis. A multiple referendum is I think a possibility, but not the most likely outcome.
The big questions are whether the EU will play ball, and whether the UK parliament will cut off its nose to spite its face.
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
Oh, okay, so what Leavers meant to say during the referendum was "No Deal is just project fear... unless of course there are some Remainers in government or the civil service, but there's no way that's going to happen, right guys? Haha", and they just forgot the second part?
They probably assumed the Government after the referendum would feel honour bound to implement the result, rather than try to find a way to reserve it. I agree that was a bit silly.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
"If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now."
Fantasy thinking again... It took 9 years to agree CETA. What on earth makes you think CETA Plus could have been done in 24 months?
It is a fantasy. Do people think May chose this route because she thought it would be easy ? And since she is widely said not to be competent, it cannot have been a secret plot she as meticulously and competently managed this whole time. No, it's complicated and the politics is poisonous. Her solution might not be good, and others might be better, but they wouldn't have made it easy.
Most of the recent posts have debated internal Tory politics. Not UK parliamentary politics. Not the commission. Not the internal politics of 27 other governments. All of them will look at the official UK position and see something that (a) is cake that crosses the lines of preserving inviolate the four freedoms and (b) something the government can't agree on never mind parliament.
The idea that the May plan in any form is going to be implemented is yet more cakeism. Its a plan that the government hasn't agreed intact, that parliament won't agree, that the commission can't agree, and even if the planets align and get all those passed all it takes is one of the 27 to shoot it dead - and France, Spain, Ireland amongst others are lined up line a world cup penalty shootout ready for a kick.
Three options: 1 Revoke Article 50 2 EEA 3 Crash out
There is no reason why these can't be put as a referendum - one option to remain, two options to leave. And its going to have to be a referendum as this government is trapped in office and this parliament is trapped in session, all terrified by threats of angry voters who simultaneously demand option 3 whilst denying the nature of option 3. Politically we can't revoke A50 so that's not an option even at the death faced with falling off the cliff. Which leaves EEA (rejected by both ZombieMay and Jezbollah) and falling off the cliff which is a default not a choice but still gets talked about like we'd be in control.
Get your cupboards stocked boys and girls. The meteor which wipes out the Conservative Party is looming large in the window...
Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
Oh, okay, so what Leavers meant to say during the referendum was "No Deal is just project fear... unless of course there are some Remainers in government or the civil service, but there's no way that's going to happen, right guys? Haha", and they just forgot the second part?
They probably assumed the Government after the referendum would feel honour bound to implement the result, rather than try to find a way to reserve it. I agree that was a bit silly.
Brexit implements the result. A harder brexit than may is proposing would please more people, but the result would be implemented without it, there would just be more anger. The pretending one path is the only true path, rather than a series of political decisions, has been one of the more egregious parts of this whole affair.
When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit," she should have gone with it. She could have blamed Cameron for the lack of preparation, taken a year to seriously negotiate (the EU will always take as long as they're got) and then present the final plan to the EU (it's not a deal until it's been agreed) and then either go ahead or say "No deal can be agreed"
If Parliament disagrees, go back to the country and say basically "The MPs want a say in something that they agreed was up to the whole electorate. Back me or sack me."
For the first time in GE election history, I'd vote Tory (as a one-off probably).
it would make the GE very interesting.
"(the EU will always take as long as they're got)"
So now they are down to a few months.
But the EU never decides anything until the last 48 hours. So let's reset the clock. Nothing is agreed. Not the 40 billion. Not the Irish border. All up for grabs.
When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit," she should have gone with it. She could have blamed Cameron for the lack of preparation, taken a year to seriously negotiate (the EU will always take as long as they're got) and then present the final plan to the EU (it's not a deal until it's been agreed) and then either go ahead or say "No deal can be agreed"
If Parliament disagrees, go back to the country and say basically "The MPs want a say in something that they agreed was up to the whole electorate. Back me or sack me."
For the first time in GE election history, I'd vote Tory (as a one-off probably).
it would make the GE very interesting.
"(the EU will always take as long as they're got)"
So now they are down to a few months.
But the EU never decides anything until the last 48 hours. So let's reset the clock. Nothing is agreed. Not the 40 billion. Not the Irish border. All up for grabs.
Under a new PM.
And how does that new PM get solid agreement for such a strategy? They won't have the numbers for it.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
"If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now."
Fantasy thinking again... It took 9 years to agree CETA. What on earth makes you think CETA Plus could have been done in 24 months?
Because both Barnier and Tusk said they would be happy with CETA! And because given it was already in text form it could have been changed very quickly. Campbell-Bannerman did a great article months ago where he went through it section by section and showed how much could just be re-used.
The reason that CETA was abandoned is that May had a horrific error agreeing the NI backstop and is too stubborn to admit it was a mistake. She fell for blackmail because she was desperate to make an agreement with the EU in December. It was a tactical device from the EU because they wanted a vassal state outcome and May was happy to oblige. That is why she will need to be replaced to get the deal done.
Scotland has been very quiet for the last year or so. Remember that Scottish Tories were elected on a platform that did not even mention Brexit. Was having a discussion with someone in SE to find out what the plan was. The reality is that a hard Brexit cannot be implemented in Scotland without the support of the Scottish Government.
This is the same with Northern Ireland. What happens if the Brexit day comes and go and everyone ignores it in Scotland and NI?
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
It not making sense at all is no obstacle to Nadine proposing it.
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
Essentially we should not have had a referendum previously as we are not a referenda democracy, and having another one will not create any more clarity. We can see that deluded headbangers such as JRM et al will always claim that it meant what they are uniquely able to interpret what the electorate wanted, even though there was no discussion of "hard" v "soft" brexit during the campaign. Indeed, Farage kept banging on about Norway - he seems quiet about that now. The choice now is almost certain large scale economic damage under WTO, or the Chequers plan which limits the damage, but is neither one thing or the other. What will we gain that is positive for this period of collective insanity? Absolutely nothing! Well done the Euroseptics. Right wing Tory nationalist irrational eurosceptism is as damaging to the national interest as socialism.
We've had dozens of referenda since 1973.
Public opinion has been shifting against the EU since 1992. Either the Conservatives needed to take account of this, or someone else would have done.
Dozens? Really? Switzerland has (probably hundreds), but that is how their system of democracy works and is revered as a system by a highly educated population as a result. The problem we have is the democratic deficit where the winning side says "the people have spoken and they can fuck off and shut up now". For referenda to have real democratic legitimacy they would need to be reviewed and the public should have the right to re-endorse them where necessary, particularly where there are small margins. The binary nature of "in/out" was absurd for a question of such monumental economic importance. We will reap the "reward" where nationalism always leads.
When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit," she should have gone with it. She could have blamed Cameron for the lack of preparation, taken a year to seriously negotiate (the EU will always take as long as they're got) and then present the final plan to the EU (it's not a deal until it's been agreed) and then either go ahead or say "No deal can be agreed"
If Parliament disagrees, go back to the country and say basically "The MPs want a say in something that they agreed was up to the whole electorate. Back me or sack me."
For the first time in GE election history, I'd vote Tory (as a one-off probably).
it would make the GE very interesting.
"(the EU will always take as long as they're got)"
So now they are down to a few months.
But the EU never decides anything until the last 48 hours. So let's reset the clock. Nothing is agreed. Not the 40 billion. Not the Irish border. All up for grabs.
Under a new PM.
And how does that new PM get solid agreement for such a strategy? They won't have the numbers for it.
They'll have a better mandate than Theresa May has currently.
I remember the days when Leavers assured us all that ‘No Deal’ was just Project Fear.
If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now.
The hard fact, which you don't have the courage to accept, is that it is people like you that will cause No Deal. You were so busy trying to undermine the referendum result that you pushed the Government into this mess trying to appease you all, and now you suddenly realise that the Remainer Soft Brexit idea was just a delusion, while the Leaver Hard Brexit CETA deal was always the only outcome that would honour the referendum and get through Parliament.
And the fun bit is that it is now so obvious that May was a Remainer all along that when this all goes pear shaped, the blame will fall on Remainers for creating this fiasco. Good luck with that second referendum.....
"If the Leavers had been allowed to run the show, we would have CETA Plus agreed by now."
Fantasy thinking again... It took 9 years to agree CETA. What on earth makes you think CETA Plus could have been done in 24 months?
Because both Barnier and Tusk said they would be happy with CETA! And because given it was already in text form it could have been changed very quickly. Campbell-Bannerman did a great article months ago where he went through it section by section and showed how much could just be re-used.
The reason that CETA was abandoned is that May had a horrific error agreeing the NI backstop and is too stubborn to admit it was a mistake. She fell for blackmail because she was desperate to make an agreement with the EU in December. It was a tactical device from the EU because they wanted a vassal state outcome and May was happy to oblige. That is why she will need to be replaced to get the deal done.
The NI backstop is the reason May should go.
A fundamental error of judgment. With emphasis on the mental.
. For referenda to have real democratic legitimacy they would need to be reviewed and the public should have the right to re-endorse them where necessary, particularly where there are small margins.
When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit," she should have gone with it. She could have blamed Cameron for the lack of preparation, taken a year to seriously negotiate (the EU will always take as long as they're got) and then present the final plan to the EU (it's not a deal until it's been agreed) and then either go ahead or say "No deal can be agreed"
If Parliament disagrees, go back to the country and say basically "The MPs want a say in something that they agreed was up to the whole electorate. Back me or sack me."
For the first time in GE election history, I'd vote Tory (as a one-off probably).
it would make the GE very interesting.
"(the EU will always take as long as they're got)"
So now they are down to a few months.
But the EU never decides anything until the last 48 hours. So let's reset the clock. Nothing is agreed. Not the 40 billion. Not the Irish border. All up for grabs.
Under a new PM.
And how does that new PM get solid agreement for such a strategy? They won't have the numbers for it.
They'll have a better mandate than Theresa May has currently.
Better perhaps, but not enough. You're kidding if you think a united front would be behind that strategy.
What on earth does that statement mean? Are people saying they would vote for a charismatic figure without specifying what they want that person to stand for?
Trump doesn't head his own new party is just one of the stupid parts of this tweet.
I'm asking the same question as Mr Glenn.
It's strange that so many people on the twitter thread seem to think she means Tommy. Makes no sense at all in context
The key attraction for a referendum on the deal is really that it dips the electorates hands in the blood directly.
If we have a no-deal Brexit, and that's what the electorate vote for in the clear knowledge of the consequences, then that's what they'll get.
If we have a soft Brexit transgressing one or more of the red lines, and that's what the electorate vote for in the clear knowledge of the consequences, then that's what they'll get.
If we stay in after all due to finding out what the consequences actually are, and that's what the electorate vote for in the clear knowledge of the consequences, then that's what they'll get.
No use complaining that the politicians didn't tell them, or that's not what they really voted for, or they voted for Leave in the assumption we'd free up £350 million per week for other uses without needing to be taxed more or cut elsewhere, or that there wouldn't be economic consequences, or we could stop Freedom of Movement with no issues elsewhere, or whatever. These are the options, these are the downsides of each, make your call.
However, the cynic in me is stone cold certain that it wouldn't stop their wrath when things (inevitably) incur some or all of the downsides of each of the options. On the other hand, it might mitigate the longer-term toxicity on whichever party implements whichever option - while they'll get slammed for it (whatever it is), they might be able to climb back out of it later if the electorate at least had their say on it.
Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
Does anybody think the EU would WANT us to stay in, if the mechanism was a three-option second referendum where "Remain" won with well under 50% of the vote? We would just be postponing our crash-out leave until some future point where a PM came to power with a crash-out mandate. Meantime, EVERYTHING that went wrong in Britain would be down to "the f*ckin' EU, innit?"
Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
Why would the EU accept EEA, their signatures are needed on the doc. Ireland would veto immediately.
Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
You are just re-writing reality. We don't need to agree the detail now - we simply need the EU to agree that they will offer a CETA deal which is extended to be 100% tariff and quota free and includes a services protocol (eg exactly what Tusk offered only four months ago). The details can be agreed in the transition - that is what it is for. Two+ years is plenty of time to amend an agreement that already exists and gets it ratified.
The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge. Oh, and the fact that Remainers know that reversing the referendum result would be impossible if we agreed CETA.
Why would the EU accept EEA, their signatures are needed on the doc. Ireland would veto immediately.
EEA is an existing treaty. They have already accepted it. They aren't going to break an EEA treaty which switches the UK from the EU side to the EEA side.
Why would the EU accept EEA, their signatures are needed on the doc. Ireland would veto immediately.
EEA is an existing treaty. They have already accepted it. They aren't going to break an EEA treaty which switches the UK from the EU side to the EEA side.
Why would the EU accept EEA, their signatures are needed on the doc. Ireland would veto immediately.
EEA is an existing treaty. They have already accepted it. They aren't going to break an EEA treaty which switches the UK from the EU side to the EEA side.
It would require unanimous formal treaty consent by 31 countries, plus the EU parliament. It might be doable, but it sure as hell isn't doable in a hurry.
Why would the EU accept EEA, their signatures are needed on the doc. Ireland would veto immediately.
EEA is an existing treaty. They have already accepted it. They aren't going to break an EEA treaty which switches the UK from the EU side to the EEA side.
Ireland will veto, no food in EEA.
All you guys seem to be proving is that the EU is dysfunctional and can't agree on anything (even CETA now it seems).
So leaving with No Deal seems the only realistic approach!
Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.
How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.
How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
Why would Putin want Trump over Hillary? She would be a totally useless president and make it much easier for Putin to get away with anything he wants to internationally.
Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.
How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
Comments
If Parliament disagrees, go back to the country and say basically "The MPs want a say in something that they agreed was up to the whole electorate. Back me or sack me."
For the first time in GE election history, I'd vote Tory (as a one-off probably).
it would make the GE very interesting.
I appreciate what she is trying to do, even if she is wrong, but I don't know where this optimism about a deal, any deal, is coming from.
It's not about how adept the EU and gov might be at making fudge. It's about political realities and parliamentary arithmetic. Those give very little room for a deal.
But I must be off. If we had a 2 stage referendum I'd vote deal, then remain if deal was rejected. A deal at least gets to a point where the new political reality is about how much more we want to diverge, the parties can align on that. The other options just perpetuate the ongoing mess.
Fantasy thinking again... It took 9 years to agree CETA. What on earth makes you think CETA Plus could have been done in 24 months?
Iris?
Geoffrey?
Yes
? And since she is widely said not to be competent, it cannot have been a secret plot she as meticulously and competently managed this whole time. No, it's complicated and the politics is poisonous. Her solution might not be good, and others might be better, but they wouldn't have made it easy.
So now they are down to a few months.
But the EU never decides anything until the last 48 hours. So let's reset the clock. Nothing is agreed. Not the 40 billion. Not the Irish border. All up for grabs.
Under a new PM.
The reason that CETA was abandoned is that May had a horrific error agreeing the NI backstop and is too stubborn to admit it was a mistake. She fell for blackmail because she was desperate to make an agreement with the EU in December. It was a tactical device from the EU because they wanted a vassal state outcome and May was happy to oblige. That is why she will need to be replaced to get the deal done.
This is the same with Northern Ireland. What happens if the Brexit day comes and go and everyone ignores it in Scotland and NI?
Iris?
Geoffrey?
Smokey???
A fundamental error of judgment. With emphasis on the mental.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
If we have a no-deal Brexit, and that's what the electorate vote for in the clear knowledge of the consequences, then that's what they'll get.
If we have a soft Brexit transgressing one or more of the red lines, and that's what the electorate vote for in the clear knowledge of the consequences, then that's what they'll get.
If we stay in after all due to finding out what the consequences actually are, and that's what the electorate vote for in the clear knowledge of the consequences, then that's what they'll get.
No use complaining that the politicians didn't tell them, or that's not what they really voted for, or they voted for Leave in the assumption we'd free up £350 million per week for other uses without needing to be taxed more or cut elsewhere, or that there wouldn't be economic consequences, or we could stop Freedom of Movement with no issues elsewhere, or whatever. These are the options, these are the downsides of each, make your call.
However, the cynic in me is stone cold certain that it wouldn't stop their wrath when things (inevitably) incur some or all of the downsides of each of the options. On the other hand, it might mitigate the longer-term toxicity on whichever party implements whichever option - while they'll get slammed for it (whatever it is), they might be able to climb back out of it later if the electorate at least had their say on it.
Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.
I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
Enough to torpedo it before it gets into the water.
The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge. Oh, and the fact that Remainers know that reversing the referendum result would be impossible if we agreed CETA.
If the EU will not offer CETA then No Deal. But it is far more likely they will agree CETA than May's cherry pie.
So leaving with No Deal seems the only realistic approach!
How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
NEW THREAD