Corbyn Labour maybe, Remainers like Umunna may vote with May if any deal is largely single market and customs union in all but name as is likely rather than vote with Mogg, Boris and the ERG against May and effectively for No Deal
Any Labour MP who votes with the Government on what is effectively a VOC and a GE should be immediately deselected.
Surely even Chukka cant be that stupid unless he would rather have a Tory BREXIT than a Thornberry/ Starmer one
How do you get to an election even if deal falls
You only get an election if suffient members of the government benches cross the floor, to vote against their own parties in an explicit vote of no cofidence. Twice.
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
Corbyn Labour maybe, Remainers like Umunna may vote with May if any deal is largely single market and customs union in all but name as is likely rather than vote with Mogg, Boris and the ERG against May and effectively for No Deal
Any Labour MP who votes with the Government on what is effectively a VOC and a GE should be immediately deselected.
Surely even Chukka cant be that stupid unless he would rather have a Tory BREXIT than a Thornberry/ Starmer one
How do you get to an election even if deal falls
If May fails to get Chequers through what is plan B
I dont think there is one without a GE do you?
True, but there isn't one with a GE either.
Why whats the result?
A majority Lab Government or one with like minded SNP support would undoubtedly get a soft BREXIT like the one BigG TSE and you want through IMO
By the 29th March - and the idea SNP will work for any kind of Brexit is fantasy
Getting a May plan passed by then is also Fantasy IMO.
Why do you think thats possible?
If TM comes back with a deal and it passes we leave at the end of march. If she loses we still leave at the end of march
Well, unless we don’t... are you assuming Parliament would just sit by and watch a no deal exit happen?
Well I absolutely hope the HOC stops wto but not too sure how. I wait to see TM deal but if that falls I back a second referendun
Corbyn Labour maybe, Remainers like Umunna may vote with May if any deal is largely single market and customs union in all but name as is likely rather than vote with Mogg, Boris and the ERG against May and effectively for No Deal
Any Labour MP who votes with the Government on what is effectively a VOC and a GE should be immediately deselected.
Surely even Chukka cant be that stupid unless he would rather have a Tory BREXIT than a Thornberry/ Starmer one
How do you get to an election even if deal falls
If or when the HoC tells TM to stick her deal up her hole she will resign. The only way to resolve the ensuing political and economic crisis will be a GE. The country isn't going stand for a tory coronation and unelected PM considering they got us into this fucking mess in the first place.
She won't resign. She'll seamlessly change direction. That is how she is.
What the country will or won't stand for means nothing in the context of the FTPA and the Cons holding their nerve.
Of course the country will be well and truly and well and truly and well and truly fucked but you know, that's just a by the by.
Corbyn Labour maybe, Remainers like Umunna may vote with May if any deal is largely single market and customs union in all but name as is likely rather than vote with Mogg, Boris and the ERG against May and effectively for No Deal
They will be voting for a GE to decide.
Its simple stuff.
What is the Labour position on Brexit?
What will it be tomorrow?
They have had more than one position on a single day and impossible to count them all.
How did one of their mp's describe their ever so cunning plan?
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
A50 will not be extended because there is no point. The EUs position is unreasonable and unacceptable but if they stick to it to the point of no deal, what is going to change? The problem is not a lack of time, it is that the EU have been led (thanks to the Remainers infulence) to insist on terms that can never be agreed. If we get to the end, we just have to accept the reality that there will not be an agreement.
Corbyn Labour maybe, Remainers like Umunna may vote with May if any deal is largely single market and customs union in all but name as is likely rather than vote with Mogg, Boris and the ERG against May and effectively for No Deal
They will be voting for a GE to decide.
Its simple stuff.
What is the Labour position on Brexit?
What will it be tomorrow?
They have had more than one position on a single day and impossible to count them all.
How did one of their mp's describe their ever so cunning plan?
oh that's right "utter bollocks"
Labour the Ratner of politics.
They can't be the Ratner of politics....Ratner is a Jew....eller...
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
Not sure about the allocation of blame. If the government went for option 1 it would have to work quite actively to prevent any kind of binding vote on alternative approaches taking place in Parliament. The government would own the no deal chaos.
If the government actively seeks an extension you’re probably right.
What about option 3: a no-confidence vote in Theresa May as Conservative party leader?
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
A50 will not be extended because there is no point. The EUs position is unreasonable and unacceptable but if they stick to it to the point of no deal, what is going to change? The problem is not a lack of time, it is that the EU have been led (thanks to the Remainers infulence) to insist on terms that can never be agreed. If we get to the end, we just have to accept the reality that there will not be an agreement.
No we do not and by the way, it is not your jobs on the line
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
A50 will not be extended because there is no point. The EUs position is unreasonable and unacceptable but if they stick to it to the point of no deal, what is going to change? The problem is not a lack of time, it is that the EU have been led (thanks to the Remainers infulence) to insist on terms that can never be agreed. If we get to the end, we just have to accept the reality that there will not be an agreement.
What would change is having enough time to prepare. There’s plenty of scope to disagree on how damaging no deal would be, but it must be obvious that the level of damage decreases as the amount of preparation time increases.
Still managing to get "Vote Leave" and "breaking the law" in the same sentence.
That's because the High Court held that they did. The criticism of the Electoral Commission is that they showed far too much latitude to Vote Leave, not that it had unfairly penalised it. The case was brought by Remain supporters for that reason.
The criticism is not that they showed too much latitude to Vote Leave, but that they misled them (and then had the gall to fine them for following the advice they themselves had given).
If they hadn't misled them, Vote Leave wouldn't have broken the law.
This mess is 100% the fault of the Electoral Commission.
It's too much to hope for any consistency from the Leave side, but they have seamlessly executed a volte face today. This was what Matthew Elliott said previously:
"They've listened to these, quite frankly marginal characters who came out in March, and listened to their stories, but haven't had evidence from Vote Leave side of things.
"I think it is a huge breach of natural justice that they haven't wanted to listen to our opinions and our story and we were the people running the campaign.
"We are the people who could give them the facts, rather than basing all their opinion on the fantasists."
He's spinning rather a different story today.
Is he? The court has vindicated Vote Leave's claim that they merely followed Electoral Commission advice, and the judgement was absolutely scathing about the EC's argument that it wasn't really advice.
OK, in strict legal terms it might be that Vote Leave were under an obligation to realise that the Electoral Commission are a load of half-wits who couldn't correctly interpret the law they were supposed to be guardians of, but it is a clear breach of natural justice for them (let alone little one-man-and-no-dog BeLeave) to be punished for it.
We've had political flirtations with both "business" people and "military" people for some time. Go back far enough and most leading politicians had military careers - Attlee was a Major in WW1 and both Heath and Healey were WW2 officers to name but three.
As time has progressed, the path from military service to a political life has diminished, the obvious exceptions being Paddy Ashdown and Iain Duncan-Smith both of whom get plenty of stick on here these days.
The "business" phase was more from the 1990s and led to Archie Norman being regarded at one time as the great hope of the Conservatives because he had run ASDA. We see Trump and Berlusconi as examples of "business" people moving into politics but that is in different political cultures.
I've always been wary of assuming success in business translates into success in politics. I remember Richard Branson coming over as diffident and unimpressive on election night in 1997. I wonder if the skills for business where you can command, cajole and coerce don't translate well into a political world where you have to argue, persuade and convince.
In the public sector, I've seen private sector executives come into senior positions in County Councils and quickly realise they can't treat Councillors and fellow Officers the way they did in the private sector world.
Private sector executives are still accountable to shareholders
In theory, of course. But not in practice.
And that has nothing to do with the way they treat people inn their everyday activities.
The obvious way to avert it would be an extension of the A50 period which would probably get through with Labour support - unless Labour believed they could force a GE by voting that down too.
Does parliament need to vote for an extension? My understanding was that the UK PM and the leaders of the other member states can make it happen, and if they do the EU Withdrawal Act automatically postpones itself.
I’m not sure - it would have to be pretty watertight or there would be some interesting Supreme Court cases the next day. Is that based on the text of the Withdrawal Act or general executive powers in relation to international treaties?
Looking it up I think I'm wrong - the withdrawal act fixes the date of "exit day" and doesn't seem to say what happens if exit day gets extended. So I guess if you have an extension without going back to parliament and amending it the EU thinks the UK is still a member but the UK thinks it's left, which sounds like a pretty good solution to the whole thing...
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
Not sure about the allocation of blame. If the government went for option 1 it would have to work quite actively to prevent any kind of binding vote on alternative approaches taking place in Parliament. The government would own the no deal chaos.
If the government actively seeks an extension you’re probably right.
What about option 3: a no-confidence vote in Theresa May as Conservative party leader?
Option 3 would no doubt happen, but it's hard to see what difference it would make other than a new face. The same parliamentary arithmetic, and the same split in the Conservative Party, and the same positioning of the EU27, and the same need to avoid a Corbyn/McDonnell government, would all still apply.
The obvious way to avert it would be an extension of the A50 period which would probably get through with Labour support - unless Labour believed they could force a GE by voting that down too.
Does parliament need to vote for an extension? My understanding was that the UK PM and the leaders of the other member states can make it happen, and if they do the EU Withdrawal Act automatically postpones itself.
I’m not sure - it would have to be pretty watertight or there would be some interesting Supreme Court cases the next day. Is that based on the text of the Withdrawal Act or general executive powers in relation to international treaties?
Looking it up I think I'm wrong - the withdrawal act fixes the date of "exit day" and doesn't seem to say what happens if exit day gets extended. So I guess if you have an extension without going back to parliament and amending it the EU thinks the UK is still a member but the UK thinks it's left, which sounds like a pretty good solution to the whole thing...
I thought there was a big big argument about fixing the exit day by statutory instrument. Can't remember who won though
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
The obvious way to avert it would be an extension of the A50 period which would probably get through with Labour support - unless Labour believed they could force a GE by voting that down too.
Does parliament need to vote for an extension? My understanding was that the UK PM and the leaders of the other member states can make it happen, and if they do the EU Withdrawal Act automatically postpones itself.
I’m not sure - it would have to be pretty watertight or there would be some interesting Supreme Court cases the next day. Is that based on the text of the Withdrawal Act or general executive powers in relation to international treaties?
Looking it up I think I'm wrong - the withdrawal act fixes the date of "exit day" and doesn't seem to say what happens if exit day gets extended. So I guess if you have an extension without going back to parliament and amending it the EU thinks the UK is still a member but the UK thinks it's left, which sounds like a pretty good solution to the whole thing...
I thought there was a big big argument about fixing the exit day by statutory instrument. Can't remember who won though
It's section 20(4) as referred to in Schedule 7 para 14 - the SI must be "approved" by parliament. Not fully sure but I don't think approval needs a vote, but maybe the opposition could force one.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Reminds me of Donald Trump in the debates. - I don't have an opinion on the issue but when I do it'll be the right one
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Also when the other option is no-deal. If labour somehow find themselves manufacturing and being the midwife of that it'll be the mother of all meltdowns,
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
Not sure about the allocation of blame. If the government went for option 1 it would have to work quite actively to prevent any kind of binding vote on alternative approaches taking place in Parliament. The government would own the no deal chaos.
If the government actively seeks an extension you’re probably right.
What about option 3: a no-confidence vote in Theresa May as Conservative party leader?
Option 3 would no doubt happen, but it's hard to see what difference it would make other than a new face. The same parliamentary arithmetic, and the same split in the Conservative Party, and the same positioning of the EU27, and the same need to avoid a Corbyn/McDonnell government, would all still apply.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Yep, spot-on.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Yep. Labour are playing with fire if they vote against the deal - for what look like little more than petty party advantage reasons - on such an important subject. It would make more sense for them to abstain.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
The problem with that is that any such deal would not be accepted by a large chunk of the Tory party - so May wouldn’t have agreed it in the first place... though it is an interesting thought to consider whether she can brazen it out by pretending a BINO deal is basically Chequers and trying to bounce her party into accepting it. Wouldn’t she be defenstrated at the first hint she was going to try and play that game?
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Yep, spot-on.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Wait to see what the deal and when decide upon it.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
The problem with that is that any such deal would not be accepted by a large chunk of the Tory party - so May wouldn’t have agreed it in the first place... though it is an interesting thought to consider whether she can brazen it out by pretending a BINO deal is basically Chequers and trying to bounce her party into accepting it. Wouldn’t she be defenstrated at the first hint she was going to try and play that game?
Frankly the only things on the table are No-deal/BINO/No-Leave at this point.
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
A50 will not be extended because there is no point. The EUs position is unreasonable and unacceptable but if they stick to it to the point of no deal, what is going to change? The problem is not a lack of time, it is that the EU have been led (thanks to the Remainers infulence) to insist on terms that can never be agreed. If we get to the end, we just have to accept the reality that there will not be an agreement.
We being Australia I assume. Because you’re evading the consequences.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
The problem with that is that any such deal would not be accepted by a large chunk of the Tory party - so May wouldn’t have agreed it in the first place... though it is an interesting thought to consider whether she can brazen it out by pretending a BINO deal is basically Chequers and trying to bounce her party into accepting it. Wouldn’t she be defenstrated at the first hint she was going to try and play that game?
Frankly the only things on the table are No-deal/BINO/No-Leave at this point.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Yep, spot-on.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Wait to see what the deal and when decide upon it.
Revolutionary idea I know.
The Opposition is mandated to say "I wouldn't have started from there". It doesn't matter whether the deal is good or not. It is good in the opinion of the Tories and they are wrong about everything.
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
A50 will not be extended because there is no point. The EUs position is unreasonable and unacceptable but if they stick to it to the point of no deal, what is going to change? The problem is not a lack of time, it is that the EU have been led (thanks to the Remainers infulence) to insist on terms that can never be agreed. If we get to the end, we just have to accept the reality that there will not be an agreement.
"we just have to..."
Because... ? (Hint, we are not all living in your 'reality'.)
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
The problem with that is that any such deal would not be accepted by a large chunk of the Tory party - so May wouldn’t have agreed it in the first place... though it is an interesting thought to consider whether she can brazen it out by pretending a BINO deal is basically Chequers and trying to bounce her party into accepting it. Wouldn’t she be defenstrated at the first hint she was going to try and play that game?
Defenstrated by who - ERG do not have the numbers. It was interesting that the daily mail today questioned their finances and seem to have turned their fire on them presumably because of the change of editor.
I see no problem with TM signing a deal subject to approval as indeed would the EU with their member states. There will come a time for the deal to be announced and it is not going to be in the form of a no 10 press briefing.
It will be a huge staged event beamed worldwide for our Australian friends benefit of course
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
One thing I am noting, is that there seems to be a remarkable correlation with what people want to happen, and what they predict will happen if May's deal is voted down.
I wonder if this will lead to more people being willing to risk it, and chaos afterwards? I do think the first priority would be an A50 extension in these circumstances; the country would be so disunited and ungovernable in the short term that there would be no real path to an orderly exit, even under no deal, in March.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
The problem with that is that any such deal would not be accepted by a large chunk of the Tory party - so May wouldn’t have agreed it in the first place... though it is an interesting thought to consider whether she can brazen it out by pretending a BINO deal is basically Chequers and trying to bounce her party into accepting it. Wouldn’t she be defenstrated at the first hint she was going to try and play that game?
Defenstrated by who - ERG do not have the numbers. It was interesting that the daily mail today questioned their finances and seem to have turned their fire on them presumably because of the change of editor.
I see no problem with TM signing a deal subject to approval as indeed would the EU with their member states. There will come a time for the deal to be announced and it is not going to be in the form of a no 10 press briefing.
It will be a huge staged event beamed worldwide for our Australian friends benefit of course
Cameron tried exactly the same strategy - agree to a crap deal and try and spin it. In his case that lasted two days. You can’t polish a turd.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
One thing I am noting, is that there seems to be a remarkable correlation with what people want to happen, and what they predict will happen if May's deal is voted down.
I wonder if this will lead to more people being willing to risk it, and chaos afterwards? I do think the first priority would be an A50 extension in these circumstances; the country would be so disunited and ungovernable in the short term that there would be no real path to an orderly exit, even under no deal, in March.
Wouldn't an extension to Article 50 require unanimous agreement from the EU27? That sounds tricky. Unanimity isn't easy to achieve, and everyone will want their pound of flesh. They may also not want to drag the process out any longer than necessary.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
The problem with that is that any such deal would not be accepted by a large chunk of the Tory party - so May wouldn’t have agreed it in the first place... though it is an interesting thought to consider whether she can brazen it out by pretending a BINO deal is basically Chequers and trying to bounce her party into accepting it. Wouldn’t she be defenstrated at the first hint she was going to try and play that game?
Defenstrated by who - ERG do not have the numbers. It was interesting that the daily mail today questioned their finances and seem to have turned their fire on them presumably because of the change of editor.
I see no problem with TM signing a deal subject to approval as indeed would the EU with their member states. There will come a time for the deal to be announced and it is not going to be in the form of a no 10 press briefing.
It will be a huge staged event beamed worldwide for our Australian friends benefit of course
Cameron tried exactly the same strategy - agree to a crap deal and try and spin it. In his case that lasted two days. You can’t polish a turd.
In this case it will be the UK and the EU promoting it as a success and very many thousands of voters will be relieved. Of course die hard remainers and brexiteers will be upset but they do not command majority support amongst the electorate
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
One thing I am noting, is that there seems to be a remarkable correlation with what people want to happen, and what they predict will happen if May's deal is voted down.
I wonder if this will lead to more people being willing to risk it, and chaos afterwards? I do think the first priority would be an A50 extension in these circumstances; the country would be so disunited and ungovernable in the short term that there would be no real path to an orderly exit, even under no deal, in March.
Wouldn't an extension to Article 50 require unanimous agreement from the EU27? That sounds tricky. Unanimity isn't easy to achieve, and everyone will want their pound of flesh. They may also not want to drag the process out any longer than necessary.
Yep. But "tricky" will probably look quite mild compared to the descriptions of the other options then.
One thing I wouldn't discount is that the ERG find an excuse to vote for the deal en masse. Labour will surely vote against not least to trigger a GE, and the ERG may ultimately have to suck it up at risk of losing any brexit at all.
Anyone remember Labour voting against Maastricht even though they actually supported it!
You can NEVER trust Labour if they think they can orchestrate a scenario that that's get them into power.
Theresa, Hammond and Robbins are fools for thinking they could...
Labour dropped there support for Maastricht when Major got the social chapter opt out I think. I'm not saying it was especially principled, but there was a point.
Also it's the governments job to get this legislation through. They have a parliamentary majority (with the DUP). BREXIT is a Tory party mess of their own making. It's the pottery barn rule, 'you break it, you pay for it'.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
If ever there was a party that put tribal loyalty over what's best for the country, it's Labour though. They're not exactly Nick Clegg circa 2010.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Anyone remember Labour voting against Maastricht even though they actually supported it!
You can NEVER trust Labour if they think they can orchestrate a scenario that that's get them into power.
Theresa, Hammond and Robbins are fools for thinking they could...
Labour dropped there support for Maastricht when Major got the social chapter opt out I think. I'm not saying it was especially principled, but there was a point.
Also it's the governments job to get this legislation through. They have a parliamentary majority (with the DUP). BREXIT is a Tory party mess of their own making. It's the pottery barn rule, 'you break it, you pay for it'.
Oh I'm not criticizing. You have to admire Labour and Corbyn for going for the "kill" - I'm criticizing foolish Thresa and her Remain supporters in the Tory for thinking they wouldn't.
Turns out she might, just might, need the Brexiteers she's betrayed after-all.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
One thing I wouldn't discount is that the ERG find an excuse to vote for the deal en masse. Labour will surely vote against not least to trigger a GE, and the ERG may ultimately have to suck it up at risk of losing any brexit at all.
This.
Tory loyalty will come to the fore in order to keep JC away from No 10. The ERG will surmise that a deal that ensures we leave next March is better than the risk of not leaving and/or JC in No 10.
Once we are out, then the deal can be "finessed" more to their liking.
It's a tightrope though for TM and the whips... mislay a handful of votes and the whole thing crashes and burns.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
That still relies on MPs accepting the government’s narrative that the alternative is chaos though. MPs can reasonably say “we are rejecting this because it’s rubbish and insisting you return with a better proposal”.
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
I agree it transcends party politics, but that supports my point. Defeating May's deal (assuming there is one!) would involve collusion between extreme Brexiteers and Continuity Remainers, who would be hoping to trigger diametrically opposite consequences by trashing it.
Just curious, as the nun said to the netball team, but do any PBers ever go in for gambling on cards? I mean playing poker, blackjack etc against other people (in person or online), as opposed to 'casino gambling' against bookies' computer algorithms.
If Theresa May's government falls in the next few weeks can someone make her do the "walk of shame" down the Chequers drive and then go home in a taxi?
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
That still relies on MPs accepting the government’s narrative that the alternative is chaos though. MPs can reasonably say “we are rejecting this because it’s rubbish and insisting you return with a better proposal”.
Again on the asumption there would be a better proposal. Why and how? The EU would already have even more of an upper hand and use the defeated prosposal as a starting point to get a better one for them, not a worse one.
Assumping it's not a take it or leave it in the first place.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Just curious, as the nun said to the netball team, but do any PBers ever go in for gambling on cards? I mean playing poker, blackjack etc against other people (in person or online), as opposed to 'casino gambling' against bookies' computer algorithms.
There's a poker group in my local on Monday evenings. As I can never see who the mug round the table is, I avoid participation.
Former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty in a deal with to resolve charges filed by special counsel Robert Mueller, but it is not clear if he will cooperate with prosecutors against President Donald Trump, court documents filed Friday indicate.
Manafort, who was set to begin jury selection for a second federal criminal trial next Monday, was charged in a superseding criminal information in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
That charging document alleges Manafort engaged in a conspiracy involving money laundering, tax fraud, failing to report foreign bank accounts, violating rules requiring registration of foreign agents, lying and witness tampering.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
While insensitive its hardly a sacking offence.....
Christ, that phrase comes up at my work quite a lot.
I remember when Tony Blair and Ali Campbell conducted an entire campaign around Tony being "whiter then white" while John Major was engulfed in "sleeze"
It includes the forfeiture of $46m of assets, apparently - though how much difference that will make to him, given that he's supposed to be technically bankrupt, is moot.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
Bollocks to house building and social care.
hardly your usual "let them eat cake" Mr T
Rhetorical device, Alan, rhetorical device. It is how politics is being run these days. I happen to think house building and social care and cakes all very important.
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
I agree it transcends party politics, but that supports my point. Defeating May's deal (assuming there is one!) would involve collusion between extreme Brexiteers and Continuity Remainers, who would be hoping to trigger diametrically opposite consequences by trashing it.
Well it should involve all non-Conservative/DUP MPs. What the Cons do is up to them. If the ERG want to defeat the government then they will be the useful idiots for Lab.
Former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort has agreed to plead guilty in a deal with to resolve charges filed by special counsel Robert Mueller, but it is not clear if he will cooperate with prosecutors against President Donald Trump, court documents filed Friday indicate.
Manafort, who was set to begin jury selection for a second federal criminal trial next Monday, was charged in a superseding criminal information in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
That charging document alleges Manafort engaged in a conspiracy involving money laundering, tax fraud, failing to report foreign bank accounts, violating rules requiring registration of foreign agents, lying and witness tampering.
Just curious, as the nun said to the netball team, but do any PBers ever go in for gambling on cards? I mean playing poker, blackjack etc against other people (in person or online), as opposed to 'casino gambling' against bookies' computer algorithms.
Only occasionally, at bridge. But the stipulation is that participants cannot be sober.
Just curious, as the nun said to the netball team, but do any PBers ever go in for gambling on cards? I mean playing poker, blackjack etc against other people (in person or online), as opposed to 'casino gambling' against bookies' computer algorithms.
I usually play poker with a group of friends once a month or so. We make a point of playing for small stakes and treat it as a social occasion with pizza and beer, no-one ever goes home having lost more than about £20. Used to play a bit online when it was a fad, but that was easy to lose a lot of money if you weren’t careful.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
Bollocks to house building and social care.
hardly your usual "let them eat cake" Mr T
Rhetorical device, Alan, rhetorical device. It is how politics is being run these days. I happen to think house building and social care and cakes all very important.
It would be nice if just once this century the Tories could get their shit together and present a united front with a pragmatic manifesto
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Joe Public doesn't know or care about the importance of "The Deal". They will be told that it is the wrong deal by Labour and that position will attract any number of supporters from all sides of the argument.
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Of course they will say it's a rotten deal and that they would have done far better. And of course if it were safe to vote against it they would.
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The ERG come out worse in that scenario (and rightly so). What on earth am I* doing supporting the Labour Party (especially Jezza's Labour Party) if it is going to vote with the effing government.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
This is the point I've made several times. I know there are sometimes strange bed-fellows in politics, but this one would be really weird: Vince Cable Chukka Umunna, Keir Starrmer and the SNP trooping through the lobbies to support Jacob Rees-Mogg, Andrea Jenkyns, Boris, and Peter Bone in their attempt to kill off a sensible deal, with an immediate and dramatic economic result and market reaction.
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
Couldn't happen? Just look at the starting line-ups of the Leave vs Remain teams in the actual referendum campaign.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
Bollocks to house building and social care.
hardly your usual "let them eat cake" Mr T
As a manifesto title, it might be less than effective. But it's certainly catchy.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Who sees his true-love in her naked bed, Teaching the sheets a whiter hue than white, But, when his glutton eye so full hath fed, His other agents aim at like delight? Who is so faint, that dare not be so bold To touch the fire, the weather being cold?
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
While insensitive its hardly a sacking offence.....
It's got nothing to do with race though...
Doesn't it ?
The likely origin of the phrase certainly referred to skin tone...
Who sees his true-love in her naked bed, Teaching the sheets a whiter hue than white, But, when his glutton eye so full hath fed, His other agents aim at like delight? Who is so faint, that dare not be so bold To touch the fire, the weather being cold? (Wm Shakespeare)
Though, to be fair, there's also an indirect reference to the laundry business in there, too.
If the deal is voted down, then I think there are two possibilities:
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
One thing I am noting, is that there seems to be a remarkable correlation with what people want to happen, and what they predict will happen if May's deal is voted down.
I wonder if this will lead to more people being willing to risk it, and chaos afterwards? I do think the first priority would be an A50 extension in these circumstances; the country would be so disunited and ungovernable in the short term that there would be no real path to an orderly exit, even under no deal, in March.
Wouldn't an extension to Article 50 require unanimous agreement from the EU27? That sounds tricky. Unanimity isn't easy to achieve, and everyone will want their pound of flesh. They may also not want to drag the process out any longer than necessary.
Yep. But "tricky" will probably look quite mild compared to the descriptions of the other options then.
One thing I wouldn't discount is that the ERG find an excuse to vote for the deal en masse. Labour will surely vote against not least to trigger a GE, and the ERG may ultimately have to suck it up at risk of losing any brexit at all.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
What kiboshes Corbyn's intention to vote against is that it's only the Withdrawal Agreement that will have been decided (hopefully). The future trade deal is kicked into the long grass and so Labour's famed tests do not apply.
We withdraw into the transition period, which is identical to the status quo, except that we lose our seat at the table. The real crunch point then moves to December 2020, but of course we are already out of the EU by then, so the fantasy Remain options, such as rescinding Article 50, no longer apply. We can still fall off the edge of a cliff though, after December 2020.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
What kiboshes Corbyn's intention to vote against is that it's only the Withdrawal Agreement that will have been decided (hopefully). The future trade deal is kicked into the long grass and so Labour's famed tests do not apply.
We withdraw into the transition period, which is identical to the status quo, except that we lose our seat at the table. The real crunch point then moves to December 2020, but of course we are already out of the EU by then, so the fantasy Remain options, such as rescinding Article 50, no longer apply. We can still fall off the edge of a cliff though, after December 2020.
Do you really think that'll stop them? They'll vote it down if they want to regardless.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
There is a lot of speculation at the moment but the reality is that once a deal is agreed the debate will move on very, very quickly.
Its similar to how May called an election. Prior to the election being called there'd been all sorts of speculations about how an election could be called with the new Fixed Term Parliament Act, about how Parliament might vote, the potential for a vote of no confidence etc
Reality though is that the second an election was called we were in an election campaign. The requirement for a vote in Parliament became moot, the media agenda had already moved on before Labour even put out a press release.
This won't be exactly the same but is very similar. Once a deal is reached the agenda will rapidly move on and anyone left behind is going to look very silly.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
While insensitive its hardly a sacking offence.....
Is it even insensitive? That's the third one this week, following Chuka's "Call off the dogs" and Boris's "Suicide Vest"
At a time when there’s a gang war going on, the murder rate is massively up and the police won’t chase thieves on bikes because the scrotes might get injured, it’s fair to say that the Metropolitan Police have got their priorities somewhat muddled up.
Just consider that the EU and TM have agreed a deal and at the November conference TM, Donald Tusk and Juncker hold a joint press conference to announce the successful end of negotiations and that everyone considers the deal good for UK and good for the EU. Macron and Merkel also endorse the agreement. Businesses Europe wide send their congratulations to all concerned. The market and pound surges, Jaguar Land Rover and Airbus are delighted and relieved.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
There is a lot of speculation at the moment but the reality is that once a deal is agreed the debate will move on very, very quickly.
Its similar to how May called an election. Prior to the election being called there'd been all sorts of speculations about how an election could be called with the new Fixed Term Parliament Act, about how Parliament might vote, the potential for a vote of no confidence etc
Reality though is that the second an election was called we were in an election campaign. The requirement for a vote in Parliament became moot, the media agenda had already moved on before Labour even put out a press release.
This won't be exactly the same but is very similar. Once a deal is reached the agenda will rapidly move on and anyone left behind is going to look very silly.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Mr. Thompson, that's the way PC bullshit is leading us. This reminds me a bit of South Yorkshire Police wanting to be informed of non-crime hate incidents. If they paid more attention to non-hate crimes the police might have more respect.
A senior Scotland Yard officer could face the sack for alleged racist language after using the phrase “whiter than white” in a briefing to colleagues.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
Comments
1. We leave with no deal at all: chaos, which would clearly be blamed on those who voted down the deal.
2. The government decides that it will have to ask for an extension to Article 50 (which presumably would be granted, although one can't be 100% sure of that). That would almost certainly be the subject of a vote in parliament, which would surely pass with Labour support (if not, back to scenario 1)..
But, once Article 50 has been extended, there's no urgency for a GE.
Its always been meet the Labour tests
From day1
Still is
Always has been
If the government actively seeks an extension you’re probably right.
What about option 3: a no-confidence vote in Theresa May as Conservative party leader?
OK, in strict legal terms it might be that Vote Leave were under an obligation to realise that the Electoral Commission are a load of half-wits who couldn't correctly interpret the law they were supposed to be guardians of, but it is a clear breach of natural justice for them (let alone little one-man-and-no-dog BeLeave) to be punished for it.
And that has nothing to do with the way they treat people inn their everyday activities.
And in all this labour say they will vote down the deal
Just think of the politics of it
Labour's raison d'etre is not to congratulate the Tories on a job well done, it is to argue that the Tories have fundamentally mishandled the running of the country and with Labour in charge, that will be put right. Labour voting for a Conservative deal would be abdicating their role as the Opposition.
If anyone doesn't get this simple political reality then I despair.
Revolutionary idea I know.
Pays your money, takes your choice.
Fools!
Because... ?
(Hint, we are not all living in your 'reality'.)
It's a different matter actively torpedoing it, giving rise to the scenario BigG outlined, and doing so by siding with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage.
(And that's without even considering the other parties, and the sane Labour MP party-within-a-party).
The reality of a crash-out Brexit compared to a withdrawal-Brexit is that Labour must support the latter over the former.
At the moment there is the possibility of something else but it is fast disappearing.
I see no problem with TM signing a deal subject to approval as indeed would the EU with their member states. There will come a time for the deal to be announced and it is not going to be in the form of a no 10 press briefing.
It will be a huge staged event beamed worldwide for our Australian friends benefit of course
I wonder if this will lead to more people being willing to risk it, and chaos afterwards? I do think the first priority would be an A50 extension in these circumstances; the country would be so disunited and ungovernable in the short term that there would be no real path to an orderly exit, even under no deal, in March.
*rhetorical device, obvs.
You can NEVER trust Labour if they think they can orchestrate a scenario that that's get them into power.
Theresa, Hammond and Robbins are fools for thinking they could...
Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely scenario. I suspect there might be some strategic abstentions, with MP after MP standing up to say 'I don't like this deal, but since the alternative is chaos I won't vote against it.'
One thing I wouldn't discount is that the ERG find an excuse to vote for the deal en masse. Labour will surely vote against not least to trigger a GE, and the ERG may ultimately have to suck it up at risk of losing any brexit at all.
That makes it both an opportunity and a terrible terrible risk, for all parties.
Also it's the governments job to get this legislation through. They have a parliamentary majority (with the DUP). BREXIT is a Tory party mess of their own making. It's the pottery barn rule, 'you break it, you pay for it'.
He could face an internal investigation for gross misconduct — the most serious disciplinary offence. Sources said the detective superintendent addressed colleagues about the need to be faultless and above reproach in carrying out inquiries, saying that they needed to be “whiter than white”.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/senior-met-officer-could-face-the-sack-for-using-whiter-than-white-phrase-a3936041.html
While insensitive its hardly a sacking offence.....
They're not exactly Nick Clegg circa 2010.
I'd bet next month's mortgage payment that its etymology is based upon notions of cleanliness being white (as in laundry, sheets, shirts, etc).
As such Scotland Yard is guilty of craven virtue signalling.
Turns out she might, just might, need the Brexiteers she's betrayed after-all.
This has transcended Party politics. Bollocks to house building and social care.
Tory loyalty will come to the fore in order to keep JC away from No 10. The ERG will surmise that a deal that ensures we leave next March is better than the risk of not leaving and/or JC in No 10.
Once we are out, then the deal can be "finessed" more to their liking.
It's a tightrope though for TM and the whips... mislay a handful of votes and the whole thing crashes and burns.
hardly your usual "let them eat cake" Mr T
Just curious, as the nun said to the netball team, but do any PBers ever go in for gambling on cards? I mean playing poker, blackjack etc against other people (in person or online), as opposed to 'casino gambling' against bookies' computer algorithms.
Assumping it's not a take it or leave it in the first place.
Manafort, who was set to begin jury selection for a second federal criminal trial next Monday, was charged in a superseding criminal information in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
That charging document alleges Manafort engaged in a conspiracy involving money laundering, tax fraud, failing to report foreign bank accounts, violating rules requiring registration of foreign agents, lying and witness tampering.
(CNBC)
Unrealistic, I know
But it's certainly catchy.
Teaching the sheets a whiter hue than white,
But, when his glutton eye so full hath fed,
His other agents aim at like delight?
Who is so faint, that dare not be so bold
To touch the fire, the weather being cold?
Con 290
Lab 278
LD 16
SNP 44
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Mr. B, gasp! Heaping sin upon sin.
Never played bridge.
Mr. Sandpit, aye, imagine it would be (although it's equally easy to lose at F1, as I have aptly demonstrated this year).
The likely origin of the phrase certainly referred to skin tone...
Who sees his true-love in her naked bed,
Teaching the sheets a whiter hue than white,
But, when his glutton eye so full hath fed,
His other agents aim at like delight?
Who is so faint, that dare not be so bold
To touch the fire, the weather being cold?
(Wm Shakespeare)
Though, to be fair, there's also an indirect reference to the laundry business in there, too.
We withdraw into the transition period, which is identical to the status quo, except that we lose our seat at the table. The real crunch point then moves to December 2020, but of course we are already out of the EU by then, so the fantasy Remain options, such as rescinding Article 50, no longer apply. We can still fall off the edge of a cliff though, after December 2020.
One-seat margin separates two established blocs, with far right waiting in the wings"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/14/sweden-remains-in-political-limbo-after-all-votes-counted
Its similar to how May called an election. Prior to the election being called there'd been all sorts of speculations about how an election could be called with the new Fixed Term Parliament Act, about how Parliament might vote, the potential for a vote of no confidence etc
Reality though is that the second an election was called we were in an election campaign. The requirement for a vote in Parliament became moot, the media agenda had already moved on before Labour even put out a press release.
This won't be exactly the same but is very similar. Once a deal is reached the agenda will rapidly move on and anyone left behind is going to look very silly.
Firing someone for saying 'whiter than white' is just nuts.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4883087/Manafort-DC-Superseding-Criminal-Information.pdf
But didn't we know all this already? It's all about his lobbying activities for various Ukrainian clients, and tax evasion.
Mr. Thompson, that's the way PC bullshit is leading us. This reminds me a bit of South Yorkshire Police wanting to be informed of non-crime hate incidents. If they paid more attention to non-hate crimes the police might have more respect.