On the other hand, the deal seemed essentially dead anyway, even assuming the EU were on board (which multiple people said they would not be due to cherry picking on the red lines), so it doesn't actually matter except in the sense it delays the Tory party confrontation that needs to happen again. So irritating, but fundamentally the deal lacked the support necessary to happen before, so it is just as dead as it was previously.
It just seems silly to keep delaying things on a proposed deal when the people forcing the changes clearly want no deal though - nothing is actually going to satisfy them on that score.
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
It could of course go as according to the forecasts, slight loss of economic growth with the economy adjusts and then decent growth and job creation. Means re-joining the EU will be off the cards for the future.
Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?
Never a truer word spoken.
I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.
Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .
Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.
But that won't help either. Neither faction has the backing of the other, so at best would be slightly less indecisive, because they would still be fundamentally weak.
I guess it's time to see what the EU think, but if they would have had trouble before with it they will even more so now. May can then either go with no deal, or step aside for someone who will, since it will be all that is left for us unfortunately.
This goes to show why the Article 50 process (deliberately, perhaps?) is flawed.
Really there should be two years for negotiation followed by a year of legislative implementation. A government could get its negotiations hammered out before putting the legislation on the table to implement the deal. As it is we have a moving feast of Commons votes dictating in some ways the governments negotiating position.
I suspect it’s not designed that way to make it even harder to leave. Of course we could have spent the pre-Article 50 phase trying to persuade the European Parliament to extend the period, but then I suspect there wouldn’t have been consensus. Would be interesting in future to see if the government took soundings though (I’m guessing no).
We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.
Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guarantee we’d get what we wanted.
Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that it wasn’t drafted with practicality in mind. Which given the state of mind of the European Project isn’t exactly a surprise.
Of course, but the EU don’t expect countries to go rogue rather than work to reform from within, with alliances and compromises.
And that’s a fundamental flaw in the EUs thinking. There was always a chance someone would leave at some point. You can’t guarantee the future. Which is presumably why they put article 50 in the treaty in the first place. But didn’t really think through the consequences of someone actually using it.
Wonder how close this one will be. Another ERG Amendment I think but not sure what 73 says.
It's on VAT, to keep up out of the VAT area.
I am not sure if the gov't is accepting it. I don't think it is consistent with the white paper, but I have lost track...
I think Grieve (who is probably reading this stuff with a little more care than us) made a similar point in the House anout the inconsistency of the amendments.
Everyone losing track of what the eff is going on is likely not unintentional at this point.
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
This does strike me a little of the old truth that one's strength can often end up being ones weakness as well. Lack of ideological fervour, willingness to compromise and avoid confrontation, they can all be very handy in a job which requires careful management and a practical approach, but stick to that when things need doing now, and pissing off a lot of people is inevitable, and the attempt to keep it all together just becomes sad to watch really.
I guess the government can celebrate winning a vote and surviving another day. It's a shame they don't seem to have a strategy that goes beyond a day or so, since they just leap from crisis to crisis.
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
Agreed.
A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......
What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.
Are any negotiations even planned?
I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).
Not many patriots left in the parliamentary Conservative party.
Heidi Allen Guto Bebb Richard Benyon Ken Clarke Jonathan Djanogly Dominic Grieve Stephen Hammond Philip Lee Nicky Morgan Bob Neill Mark Pawsey Antoinette Sandbach Anna Soubry Sarah Wollaston
Heidi Allen Guto Bebb Rochard Benyon Ken Clarke Jonathan Djanogly Domonic Grieve Stephen Hammond Phillip Lee Nicky Morgan Robert Neill Mark Pawsey Antoinette Sandbach Anna Soubry Sarah Wollaston
So the government, allying with some Tory rebels, to amend their own bill, avoid defeat by Tory rebels and Labour because of the support of Labour rebels.
JRM and co do - prevent any other option from being viable and win by default.
Corbyn has one - say and do nothing firm on Brexit, however irresponsible that is (the much praised 'masterly inactivity' strategy), so that Labour will not be in the public eye on it, and when government collapses, Labour will win by default
May seemed to have one, even if it looked unlikely to succeed. But apparently it is just enough to survive from vote to vote, even if it makes an already difficult sell incomprehensible apparently.
I believed at least she had sincerely chosen a path, but given no one seems to believe the amendments are compatible with what she stated previously, I don't think her deal proposal was sincere after all.
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
Agreed.
A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......
What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.
Are any negotiations even planned?
I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).
It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.
Heidi Allen Guto Bebb Rochard Benyon Ken Clarke Jonathan Djanogly Domonic Grieve Stephen Hammond Phillip Lee Nicky Morgan Robert Neill Mark Pawsey Antoinette Sandbach Anna Soubry Sarah Wollaston
This does strike me a little of the old truth that one's strength can often end up being ones weakness as well. Lack of ideological fervour, willingness to compromise and avoid confrontation, they can all be very handy in a job which requires careful management and a practical approach, but stick to that when things need doing now, and pissing off a lot of people is inevitable, and the attempt to keep it all together just becomes sad to watch really.
I agree T May is demeaning her office and the country.
Just seen the list of Tory rebels on the ERG amendment. Looks like Justine Greening voted with the government, on the very day she called for a 2nd referendum?! God the Tory remainers are absolutely cr*p at getting the numbers together aren't they.
I’m surprised the EU doesn’t just walk away from the negotiations. The government has been allowed no leeway to negotiate so what is the point because of the hardline Brexiteers. They might as well just prepare for the UK crashing out,
The three/four Labour rebels voting in favour of the ERG saw it through!!
Corbyn yet again letting the side down
I really don't think Corbyn can be blamed for the fact 1-2% of his party rebel sometimes. Given how much so many of his MPs don't like him, that it is not higher more often is a surprise, but some rebels are surely inevitable.
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
It is very risky, to be sure, and rather flippant about those risks. It's all very well if they console themselves that it still us leavers' fault in the end, but no deal was not inevitable, and unless they genuinely think the May deal would be bad or not democratic somehow, saying no to it for other reasons seems tactically unwise if nothing else.
Does this VAT amendment mean the end of boxes 8 and 9 ? & intrastat ? & EC Sales ?
Yes, far more supplies would be out of scope.
The main change would be more bothering with import VAT and you will need a VAT registration int he EU rather than relying on the Directive (for small businesses)
It is astonishing that the Labour Party presumes that it is more qualified than all of the above and, in particular, the Jewish community, to define antisemitism.
The three/four Labour rebels voting in favour of the ERG saw it through!!
Corbyn yet again letting the side down
I really don't think Corbyn can be blamed for the fact 1-2% of his party rebel sometimes. Given how much so many of his MPs don't like him, that it is not higher more often is a surprise, but some rebels are surely inevitable.
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
It is very risky, to be sure, and rather flippant about those risks. It's all very well if they console themselves that it still us leavers' fault in the end, but no deal was not inevitable, and unless they genuinely think the May deal would be bad or not democratic somehow, saying no to it for other reasons seems tactically unwise if nothing else.
I wasn't being hugely serious, three or four rebels always expected
Heidi Allen Guto Bebb Rochard Benyon Ken Clarke Jonathan Djanogly Domonic Grieve Stephen Hammond Phillip Lee Nicky Morgan Robert Neill Mark Pawsey Antoinette Sandbach Anna Soubry Sarah Wollaston
And the ERG rebels would be 100 plus
Correct. The Brexit lot have voted for the Govt time and time again and swalloed some unpalatable stuff. The Cons voting against the govt time and time again are this lot. T May should have understood this, she had a loyal block vote and she annoyed them by rewarding the non-loyal block of 14. She has no clue at all.
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
Agreed.
A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......
What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.
Are any negotiations even planned?
I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).
It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.
Agreed. I put No deal at 70% chance earlier (purely on my gut). I'd put it at about 80% now.
There's too much that needs to go right for a deal to occur now, and the optimism of those assuming a governmental and EU fudge can undo the political positioning that has occurred strikes me as not based in reality.
Not many patriots left in the parliamentary Conservative party.
How the hell is it patriotic to collect tariffs on behalf of a third party if they're not reciprocating?
This amendment should be totally uncontroversial. If the EU wants a deal where we collect tariffs on their behalf and vice versa then great. If no deal can be reached than so be it. Either way this amendment doesn't rule out a deal it rules out unreciprocated servitude.
Does this VAT amendment mean the end of boxes 8 and 9 ? & intrastat ? & EC Sales ?</blockquote If no one knows we really are without a paddle in uncharted sewerage.
Very sad things have come to such a pass. Though I imagine May would be delighted if that could divert at least some political attention away from the travesty of a negotiation she is supposed to be attempting now (it feels like it is going through the motions at this point - her previous deal was unlikely but she might have believed it, but now it's about going to the EU with an expectation of it being shut down).
Heidi Allen Guto Bebb Rochard Benyon Ken Clarke Jonathan Djanogly Domonic Grieve Stephen Hammond Phillip Lee Nicky Morgan Robert Neill Mark Pawsey Antoinette Sandbach Anna Soubry Sarah Wollaston
And the ERG rebels would be 100 plus
That is the tip of the iceberg of potential Remain rebels. While May is leading they will keep their powder dry.
Not many patriots left in the parliamentary Conservative party.
How the hell is it patriotic to collect tariffs on behalf of a third party if they're not reciprocating?
This amendment should be totally uncontroversial. If the EU wants a deal where we collect tariffs on their behalf and vice versa then great. If no deal can be reached than so be it. Either way this amendment doesn't rule out a deal it rules out unreciprocated servitude.
Yes - it is entirely sensible and reasonable. The fact that the EU won't like it does not negate that fact.
If you won't do something for me why should I do it for you?
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
I’m surprised the EU doesn’t just walk away from the negotiations. The government has been allowed no leeway to negotiate so what is the point because of the hardline Brexiteers. They might as well just prepare for the UK crashing out,
That would play into the Brexiteers hands completely - the EU would nose dive in the Country
Sometimes it feels like May is successfully playing a very difficult video game where the only aim is personal survival.
I get the impression that if she goes it'll be because she decides herself that she doesn't want to carry on, not because she's been forced out by anyone else.
So the government, allying with some Tory rebels, to amend their own bill, avoid defeat by Tory rebels and Labour because of the support of Labour rebels.
3 Labour MPs voted with the Government on the Customs Bill (Field, Hoey and Mann?), given the Government won by 3 votes they made the difference
Sometimes it feels like May is successfully playing a very difficult video game where the only aim is personal survival.
It's one of those scripted scenes where the outcome is predetermined, but skillful maneuvering or luck can see a player last a long long time, but to no purpose.
Just put down the controller and let the end come, May. She doesn't believe in no deal brexit, but cannot be so silly as to think she can get a deal now, so why put herself through all this?
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP
So the government, allying with some Tory rebels, to amend their own bill, avoid defeat by Tory rebels and Labour because of the support of Labour rebels.
3 Labour MPs voted with the Government on the Customs Bill (Field, Hoey and Mann?), given the Government won by 3 votes they made the difference
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
Agreed.
A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......
What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.
Are any negotiations even planned?
I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).
It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.
Ask the EU for a pause on Article 50 while we and they plan for an orderly no deal exit on WTO terms, which is in both our interests.
Or go back to Parliament and say that it is impossible to come up with a proposal which Parliament will back which can also be agreed with the EU and that therefore - in order to avoid a disorderly crash out - she is going to cancel Article 50, pass a one line Act to that effect and let the ECJ decide whether this is legally permissible.
If Parliament won't support this resign and see if someone else can command a majority and sort out the clusterfuck.
Then get on a plane (while they can still fly) and piss off somewhere very far away where the internet and telephone lines work intermittently if at all.
Honestly, I am no supporter of Corbyn (I would consider it a day of shame if he were to become Britain's PM) but if the Tories can't get their act together then let Labour see what they can do to sort out Brexit with the EU. They might surprise us all.
It’s becoming clearer that something is going to have to give. Either Parliament is going to have to backtrack, Britain is going to crash out without a deal or Brexit isn’t going to happen.
Right now I think I order them 1,2,3 but any of them can easily be envisaged. The next few months look chaotic.
We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.
Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guarantee we’d get what we wanted.
Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that it wasn’t drafted with practicality in mind. Which given the state of mind of the European Project isn’t exactly a surprise.
Here's something I simply do not understand. Cameron and May were both sensible enough to avoid triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, because they knew some preparation time would be needed. There were some voices who wanted it triggered immediately, presumably to prevent a "betrayal", but that would clearly have been disastrous. On the other hand, the basic shape of the EU's offer, or set of plausible offers, was pretty clear from the outset. RCS points out that commission "red-lines flowchart" but it didn't contain anything that couldn't have been logically discerned.
So why did she not use that time to sort out the UK government position and get most of the ducks in a row? The fact that it's taken this long to decide what the cabinet want re customs, for example, indicates a lot of basic stuff was being left very late.
But why? May could decide when to set the trigger. If it would take more time to arrange the position, she could have taken it. Did she trigger prematurely because she thought that the EU's position was actually quite opaque and the options would only become clear once the talking had started? Did she know how hard it would be to reach cabinet agreement so didn't want to waste time and political capital discussing hypotheticals ("what if the EU don't agree to give us X" etc), and thought that her own control over the negotiations would let her impose her will when required once the process had started? Did she think that they had lined the ducks up, and were surprised that the negotiations stalled over something they hadn't predicted? (Seems unlikely given the stumbling blocks so far have been in pretty predictable areas, but then few people would rate her administration highly for competence right now.)
Neither the Tories nor Labour really had a coherent vision of the kind of Brexit they wanted in their 2017 manifestos so this wasn't just a May phenomenon - had Corbyn won that election, he may have had even more fun and games getting his party to take his line than May has managed - but she's the one who'll be remembered for it.
Sometimes it feels like May is successfully playing a very difficult video game where the only aim is personal survival.
It's one of those scripted scenes where the outcome is predetermined, but skillful maneuvering or luck can see a player last a long long time, but to no purpose.
Just put down the controller and let the end come, May. She doesn't believe in no deal brexit, but cannot be so silly as to think she can get a deal now, so why put herself through all this?
So the government, allying with some Tory rebels, to amend their own bill, avoid defeat by Tory rebels and Labour because of the support of Labour rebels.
3 Labour MPs voted with the Government on the Customs Bill (Field, Hoey and Mann?), given the Government won by 3 votes they made the difference
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
All a bit silly really - go to all the effort of looking like you want something softer, and are willing to be firm about it, then cave in and practically say that no deal is what we are getting. Seriously, what is the point of all these changes in position? If you're giving in, give in all the way, else the fight will just come up again.
I’m surprised the EU doesn’t just walk away from the negotiations. The government has been allowed no leeway to negotiate so what is the point because of the hardline Brexiteers. They might as well just prepare for the UK crashing out,
That would play into the Brexiteers hands completely - the EU would nose dive in the Country
If it wants out, it doesn’t need to walk, it can simply wait. Probably busy planning mitigations for the hard Brexit scenario.
It’s becoming clearer that something is going to have to give. Either Parliament is going to have to backtrack, Britain is going to crash out without a deal or Brexit isn’t going to happen.
Right now I think I order them 1,2,3 but any of them can easily be envisaged. The next few months look chaotic.
I'd like to know who changed their vote between amendments 36 and 73. Was surprised when the Gov't won with 303 votes.
We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.
Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guaran
Here's something I simply do not understand. Cameron and May were both sensible enough to avoid triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, because they knew some preparation time would be needed. There were some voices who wanted it triggered immediately, presumably to prevent a "betrayal", but that would clearly have been disastrous. On the other hand, the basic shape of the EU's offer, or set of plausible offers, was pretty clear from the outset. RCS points out that commission "red-lines flowchart" but it didn't contain anything that couldn't have been logically discerned.
So why did she not use that time to sort out the UK government position and get most of the ducks in a row? The fact that it's taken this long to decide what the cabinet want re customs, for example, indicates a lot of basic stuff was being left very late.
But why? May could decide when to set the trigger. If it would take more time to arrange the position, she could have taken it. Did she trigger prematurely because she thought that the EU's position was actually quite opaque and the options would only become clear once the talking had started? Did she know how hard it would be to reach cabinet agreement so didn't want to waste time and political capital discussing hypotheticals ("what if the EU don't agree to give us X" etc), and thought that her own control over the negotiations would let her impose her will when required once the process had started? Did she think that they had lined the ducks up, and were surprised that the negotiations stalled over something they hadn't predicted? (Seems unlikely given the stumbling blocks so far have been in pretty predictable areas, but then few people would rate her administration highly for competence right now.)
Neither the Tories nor Labour really had a coherent vision of the kind of Brexit they wanted in their 2017 manifestos so this wasn't just a May phenomenon - had Corbyn won that election, he may have had even more fun and games getting his party to take his line than May has managed - but she's the one who'll be remembered for it.
A question I have been trying to think of an answer to for a long time, and particularly this year. As hard as I thought Brexit might be, which was pretty hard, I simply never conceived of a situation where 2 years into a new ministry the Tory party would not have coalesced around a coherent position (or even, god forbid, the parties could try to seek some common ground). It's a level of incompetence that can have no justification.
It’s becoming clearer that something is going to have to give. Either Parliament is going to have to backtrack, Britain is going to crash out without a deal or Brexit isn’t going to happen.
Right now I think I order them 1,2,3 but any of them can easily be envisaged. The next few months look chaotic.
So the government, allying with some Tory rebels, to amend their own bill, avoid defeat by Tory rebels and Labour because of the support of Labour rebels.
3 Labour MPs voted with the Government on the Customs Bill (Field, Hoey and Mann?), given the Government won by 3 votes they made the difference
I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.
I think this is dangerous.
Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?
Agreed.
A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......
What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.
Are any negotiations even planned?
I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).
It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.
Ask the EU for a pause on Article 50 while we and they plan for an orderly no deal exit on WTO terms, which is in both our interests.
Or go back to Parliament and say that it is impossible to come up with a proposal which Parliament will back which can also be agreed with the EU and that therefore - in order to avoid a disorderly crash out - she is going to cancel Article 50, pass a one line Act to that effect and let the ECJ decide whether this is legally permissible.
If Parliament won't support this resign and see if someone else can command a majority and sort out the clusterfuck.
Then get on a plane (while they can still fly) and piss off somewhere very far away where the internet and telephone lines work intermittently if at all.
Honestly, I am no supporter of Corbyn (I would consider it a day of shame if he were to become Britain's PM) but if the Tories can't get their act together then let Labour see what they can do to sort out Brexit with the EU. They might surprise us all.
Yup it’s looking like time to call for someone else. I reckon you might be right. Corbyn is more pragmatic than this lot.
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP
Soft or hard what will matter are the practical consequences. The tories are fooling themselves if they think they will win if hard brexit, or no deal brexit, has big consequences.
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP
If that is the case May needs to call an election very, very soon, before the reality of what a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit, begins to bite. We leave on 29th March 2019 and, as things stand, there will be no transition deal. That’s what the Tories have voted for tonight.
Ms Morgan and Mr Hammond’s amendment sparked serious alarm in Downing Street on Monday night, as it would wreak havoc on Mrs May’s entire negotiating strategy if passed.
Ahahahahahahaa
What f*cking negotiating strategy? The government will clearly toss anything to avoid losing a vote, so has no credibility left to negotiate with, when after Chequers it at least had the credibility of appearing to take a stand.
Flexibility is a useful attribute, but this is more akin to having to pick between 2 different directions in which to charge, and changing your mind every few seconds, ending up going nowhere.
That's not a negotiating strategy - what does May say to the EU and other heads of government? "I don't know what I'm asking for, it depends on what I have to say tomorrow to prevent another rebellion'
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP
Hard Brexit destroys the Tories' main USP - that they are pragmatic, not ideological and can be trusted with economic matters because they care about the country. It shows them up as madly ideological, deeply unconcerned with the practical consequences of an outcome for which little planning has been made and which could cause real economic and social harm to the country and arrogantly indifferent to voters' concerns, talking only to themselves - and not even to the best of themselves but the sorts of people most normal people would avoid sitting next to on a long train journey.
And you think this is a winning combination?
The Tories are making Corbyn look like a sensible alternative. That's the mess your party is in. Having got your party into this mess because you ran scared of UKIP you're running scared of them again. Grow a pair, for God's sake, and do what is right by the country. There was a time when Tories did not need to be told this.
My vote no longer matters in my constituency but the Tory candidate need not bother knocking on my door for a very very long time.
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP
If that is the case May needs to call an election very, very soon, before the reality of what a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit, begins to bite. We leave on 29th March 2019 and, as things stand, there will be no transition deal. That’s what the Tories have voted for tonight.
But she cannot call for one (and before anyone says the PM cannot just call for one, I think we can use it for shorthand of going through the various FTPA scenarios) while the party is so bitterly divided. She won't be able to get all current MPs on board with backing that position.
These votes tonight are all theatre. Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.
On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP
If that is the case May needs to call an election very, very soon, before the reality of what a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit, begins to bite. We leave on 29th March 2019 and, as things stand, there will be no transition deal. That’s what the Tories have voted for tonight.
Here's something I simply do not understand. Cameron and May were both sensible enough to avoid triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, because they knew some preparation time would be needed. There were some voices who wanted it triggered immediately, presumably to prevent a "betrayal", but that would clearly have been disastrous. On the other hand, the basic shape of the EU's offer, or set of plausible offers, was pretty clear from the outset. RCS points out that commission "red-lines flowchart" but it didn't contain anything that couldn't have been logically discerned.
So why did she not use that time to sort out the UK government position and get most of the ducks in a row? The fact that it's taken this long to decide what the cabinet want re customs, for example, indicates a lot of basic stuff was being left very late.
But why? May could decide when to set the trigger. If it would take more time to arrange the position, she could have taken it. Did she trigger prematurely because she thought that the EU's position was actually quite opaque and the options would only become clear once the talking had started? Did she know how hard it would be to reach cabinet agreement so didn't want to waste time and political capital discussing hypotheticals ("what if the EU don't agree to give us X" etc), and thought that her own control over the negotiations would let her impose her will when required once the process had started? Did she think that they had lined the ducks up, and were surprised that the negotiations stalled over something they hadn't predicted? (Seems unlikely given the stumbling blocks so far have been in pretty predictable areas, but then few people would rate her administration highly for competence right now.)
Neither the Tories nor Labour really had a coherent vision of the kind of Brexit they wanted in their 2017 manifestos so this wasn't just a May phenomenon - had Corbyn won that election, he may have had even more fun and games getting his party to take his line than May has managed - but she's the one who'll be remembered for it.
A question I have been trying to think of an answer to for a long time, and particularly this year. As hard as I thought Brexit might be, which was pretty hard, I simply never conceived of a situation where 2 years into a new ministry the Tory party would not have coalesced around a coherent position (or even, god forbid, the parties could try to seek some common ground). It's a level of incompetence that can have no justification.
As I said before, I think May's autobiography will be fascinating reading. What was she really thinking? Whenever we can seem to discern some rationale behind her choices, she negates it with her next move.
Comments
It just seems silly to keep delaying things on a proposed deal when the people forcing the changes clearly want no deal though - nothing is actually going to satisfy them on that score.
Boris
I guess it's time to see what the EU think, but if they would have had trouble before with it they will even more so now. May can then either go with no deal, or step aside for someone who will, since it will be all that is left for us unfortunately.
Question will be whether administratively we leave it
The worst of both worlds.
Everyone losing track of what the eff is going on is likely not unintentional at this point.
Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.
I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.
The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.
It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.
Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.
Everything else will be covered by the transition
A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......
What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.
Are any negotiations even planned?
I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).
Corbyn yet again letting the side down
https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1018971651105583105?s=21
Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Richard Benyon
Ken Clarke
Jonathan Djanogly
Dominic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Philip Lee
Nicky Morgan
Bob Neill
Mark Pawsey
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston
Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Rochard Benyon
Ken Clarke
Jonathan Djanogly
Domonic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Phillip Lee
Nicky Morgan
Robert Neill
Mark Pawsey
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston
Corbyn has one - say and do nothing firm on Brexit, however irresponsible that is (the much praised 'masterly inactivity' strategy), so that Labour will not be in the public eye on it, and when government collapses, Labour will win by default
May seemed to have one, even if it looked unlikely to succeed. But apparently it is just enough to survive from vote to vote, even if it makes an already difficult sell incomprehensible apparently.
I believed at least she had sincerely chosen a path, but given no one seems to believe the amendments are compatible with what she stated previously, I don't think her deal proposal was sincere after all.
& intrastat ?
& EC Sales ?
It is pitiful to watch.
It is very risky, to be sure, and rather flippant about those risks. It's all very well if they console themselves that it still us leavers' fault in the end, but no deal was not inevitable, and unless they genuinely think the May deal would be bad or not democratic somehow, saying no to it for other reasons seems tactically unwise if nothing else.
The main change would be more bothering with import VAT and you will need a VAT registration int he EU rather than relying on the Directive (for small businesses)
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1018975013549039616
T May should have understood this, she had a loyal block vote and she annoyed them by rewarding the non-loyal block of 14. She has no clue at all.
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1018955594462646273
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1018957760443158529
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1018958214837219328
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1018958631759499270
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1018958960777400320
There's too much that needs to go right for a deal to occur now, and the optimism of those assuming a governmental and EU fudge can undo the political positioning that has occurred strikes me as not based in reality.
This amendment should be totally uncontroversial. If the EU wants a deal where we collect tariffs on their behalf and vice versa then great. If no deal can be reached than so be it. Either way this amendment doesn't rule out a deal it rules out unreciprocated servitude.
If you won't do something for me why should I do it for you?
https://twitter.com/timsculthorpe/status/1018975974766071808
Just put down the controller and let the end come, May. She doesn't believe in no deal brexit, but cannot be so silly as to think she can get a deal now, so why put herself through all this?
Or go back to Parliament and say that it is impossible to come up with a proposal which Parliament will back which can also be agreed with the EU and that therefore - in order to avoid a disorderly crash out - she is going to cancel Article 50, pass a one line Act to that effect and let the ECJ decide whether this is legally permissible.
If Parliament won't support this resign and see if someone else can command a majority and sort out the clusterfuck.
Then get on a plane (while they can still fly) and piss off somewhere very far away where the internet and telephone lines work intermittently if at all.
Honestly, I am no supporter of Corbyn (I would consider it a day of shame if he were to become Britain's PM) but if the Tories can't get their act together then let Labour see what they can do to sort out Brexit with the EU. They might surprise us all.
Right now I think I order them 1,2,3 but any of them can easily be envisaged. The next few months look chaotic.
So why did she not use that time to sort out the UK government position and get most of the ducks in a row? The fact that it's taken this long to decide what the cabinet want re customs, for example, indicates a lot of basic stuff was being left very late.
But why? May could decide when to set the trigger. If it would take more time to arrange the position, she could have taken it. Did she trigger prematurely because she thought that the EU's position was actually quite opaque and the options would only become clear once the talking had started? Did she know how hard it would be to reach cabinet agreement so didn't want to waste time and political capital discussing hypotheticals ("what if the EU don't agree to give us X" etc), and thought that her own control over the negotiations would let her impose her will when required once the process had started? Did she think that they had lined the ducks up, and were surprised that the negotiations stalled over something they hadn't predicted? (Seems unlikely given the stumbling blocks so far have been in pretty predictable areas, but then few people would rate her administration highly for competence right now.)
Neither the Tories nor Labour really had a coherent vision of the kind of Brexit they wanted in their 2017 manifestos so this wasn't just a May phenomenon - had Corbyn won that election, he may have had even more fun and games getting his party to take his line than May has managed - but she's the one who'll be remembered for it.
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/1018978139832242176
Ahahahahahahaa
What f*cking negotiating strategy? The government will clearly toss anything to avoid losing a vote, so has no credibility left to negotiate with, when after Chequers it at least had the credibility of appearing to take a stand.
Flexibility is a useful attribute, but this is more akin to having to pick between 2 different directions in which to charge, and changing your mind every few seconds, ending up going nowhere.
That's not a negotiating strategy - what does May say to the EU and other heads of government? "I don't know what I'm asking for, it depends on what I have to say tomorrow to prevent another rebellion'
And you think this is a winning combination?
The Tories are making Corbyn look like a sensible alternative. That's the mess your party is in. Having got your party into this mess because you ran scared of UKIP you're running scared of them again. Grow a pair, for God's sake, and do what is right by the country. There was a time when Tories did not need to be told this.
My vote no longer matters in my constituency but the Tory candidate need not bother knocking on my door for a very very long time.
https://twitter.com/_tom_burke_/status/1018976534860877825
Otherwise the Tsipras strategy would be sound.