Nicky Morgan on Ridge states TM will not lead into the next GE
So both wings of the party want a new leader post Brexit. Betting on TM to go next year must be favourite
Not exactly a shock. Would mean certain defeat for the Tories.
I actually do feel sorry for her. She was handed a poisoned chalice and unfortunately just hasn't got the ability or the guile to take the country out of the present bind.
And, good morning all!
Why certain defeat
And good morning
A GE before 2022 almost certainly sees the Tories lose imo as they will be divided. May leading is part of that division and she would probably lose since shed only lead then into a GE if we get bounced into one soon by utter chaos(though the header us right that doesn't make it simple) in which case I defy someone to explain how the Tories ok polling holds up during a government collapse.
On the latest average polling a new general election would see the Tories win most seats and almost certainly there would be a Tory majority in England ..
...Did..did you not even read what I wrote? It was hypothesizing that the polls would not stay as they are now in the event of a new GE, due to it being caused by a government collapse. I may well be proven incorrect in that guess, but the whole point of the theory was that the polls would not stay the same as now so what they show is largely irrelevant.
Except there is no evidence for that at all, the Tory vote is consistent against Corbyn Labour
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
Yes, Brexiteers will have sadly killed Brexit by pushing further than the British people will stomach, they voted for a Deal Brexit, not a crash out No Deal Brexit with all the economic damage that will do
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
No it’s not. If Theresa May sticks to her guns, how does it get introduced and passed by the House of Commons?
An opposition party proposes it, Labour, LD, SNP and Green and enough Tory MPs like Soubry, Grieve, Morgan, Wollaston, Clarke, Neil etc vote for it. There is your Commons majority and it easily passes the Lords
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
I would expect a hypothetical generic "remain vs no deal" referendum (in February?) to result in a massive slump in turnout. Leave voters would stay at home en masse because they would see it as a fix and the outcome inevitable (after all its sole purpose would be to ensure the UK remains in the EU and they would quite possibly expect the outcome to be ignored if it actually resulted in a Leave victory). We would be staying in the EU but on the back of zero democratic legitimacy. Where it goes from there, who know?
So what, even if Remain wins on a 30% turnout, Remain still wins
Thatcher was removed by the “men in grey suits”. She won the ballot in the leadership election but not by enough to keep the confidence of her senior colleagues (which is all the MIGS are).
The Leavers in government (setting aside Johnson who is a self-interested fool) proposed a Canada style FTA. It was Olly Robbins and former Remaibs who messed it up.
A Canada style FTA would have been easier and quicker than most FTAs (because of pre-existing alignment) but that’s not the same as saying it would be quick or easy.
Margaret Thatcher did not win the ballot in the leadership election. There was to be a further round and she withdrew when it became apparent she would lose.
She had amajority but insufficient. (I think 4 votes short of the 2/3 she needed?)
In any event she intended to fight on (wasn’t the quote something like “we fight on, we fight to win”). It was only when the Cabinet came in one by one telling her to quit that she gave up.
What do you think the MIGS are if not your senior colleagues telling you to quit??
She summoned the Cabinet to get their views. Her decision was based on counting for the next ballot, not on any idea that “the chaps think it’s time now”. If there was a man in a grey suit that night, it was Denis Thatcher.
Invited by Marr to look down the lens of the camera and personally apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism crisis, Mr Corbyn replied: ‘I’ll simply say this – I am an anti-racist and will die an anti-racist.
But when you believe that it is acceptable to be able to call the formation of Israel a racist act, you don't see that you have anything to apologize for...shoulder shrug....eye roll...
Mr. HYUFD, that's (the Brexiteers have pushed things too far line) just not true. The negotiations on our side are led by a Remainer, with a pro-Leave minister resigning from the department, and the EU's on the other side.
Thatcher was removed by the “men in grey suits”. She won the ballot in the leadership election but not by enough to keep the confidence of her senior colleagues (which is all the MIGS are).
The Leavers in government (setting aside Johnson who is a self-interested fool) proposed a Canada style FTA. It was Olly Robbins and former Remaibs who messed it up.
A Canada style FTA would have been easier and quicker than most FTAs (because of pre-existing alignment) but that’s not the same as saying it would be quick or easy.
Margaret Thatcher did not win the ballot in the leadership election. There was to be a further round and she withdrew when it became apparent she would lose.
She had amajority but insufficient. (I think 4 votes short of the 2/3 she needed?)
In any event she intended to fight on (wasn’t the quote something like “we fight on, we fight to win”). It was only when the Cabinet came in one by one telling her to quit that she gave up.
What do you think the MIGS are if not your senior colleagues telling you to quit??
She summoned the Cabinet to get their views. Her decision was based on counting for the next ballot, not on any idea that “the chaps think it’s time now”. If there was a man in a grey suit that night, it was Denis Thatcher.
I think you’re mythologising what the MIGS are.
It’s not “the chaps think it’s time now”
It’s “the chaps have done the counting and think you are going to lose. More dignified not to stand”
And Dennis would have been important - as Philip May will be when counselling his wife on the right time for her to step down
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
No it’s not. If Theresa May sticks to her guns, how does it get introduced and passed by the House of Commons?
An opposition party proposes it, Labour, LD, SNP and Green and enough Tory MPs like Soubry, Grieve, Morgan, Wollaston, Clarke, Neil etc vote for it. There is your Commons majority and it easily passes the Lords
So Corbyn needs to use an Opposition Day for it (and I’m not sure that the opposition can introduce legislation anyway)
The sight of hungry Venezuelan migrants travelling along country roads has become commonplace in South America. We accompany a mother of two as she faces the first test of her resolve, crossing a freezing mountain range known as the Paramo de Berlin on foot.
The UK is now in the last chance saloon and there is no time left to negotiate a bespoke future arrangement with the EU. In order to avoid a disastrous "no deal" Brexit, the only choice is to accept one of the following 2 options: a) a Norway-style association agreement, remaining in the Single Market but not the Customs Union; or: b) a much looser relationship based on Canada's trade deal with the EU. However, in both these cases, the 6 counties would need to stay in the Customs Union.
The Chequers plan is clearly dead (if it was ever alive) because it fragments the Single Market, and the sooner the Maybot acknowledges this the better. Tusk provided an apt illustration by his excellent Instagram joke about cherry picking. Mrs T would have decisively chosen the Norway option - after all, she was the main promoter of the Single Market, but did not believe in Delors-style "ever closer union".
If this incompetent government doesn't face facts soon, bring on a GE - Corbyn would make a better PM, at least from a foreign policy perspective. Not only would Labour deal better with the EU, but there would be a re-orientation of the UK's relationships with criminal racist regimes elsewhere that foment violence, such as Myanmar and Saudi Arabia.
If people want EEA then they are going to have to get a new PM. May could not have been more explicit that it did not deliver on the result of the referendum. I am sure she would resign rather than do this simply because she would have absolutely no credibility left. Even if the fantasies about a cross party group came true, you can't make the PM negotiate whatever Parliament says. I can't see a realistic path to a PM and Government that will pursue EEA. If May resigns any replacement will be a Leaver.
People keep saying that if we go for CETA then NI will have to remain in the CU. This simply is not going to happen (apart from the DUP the whole nation would never wear it). If we go for CETA and the EU will not back down on the backstop, there will be no deal. Which is why No Deal is still the likely outcome.
No Deal likely leads to a second Referendum and Remain then wins.
CETA can only be done with a Norway style transition period while it is negotiated
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
Invited by Marr to look down the lens of the camera and personally apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism crisis, Mr Corbyn replied: ‘I’ll simply say this – I am an anti-racist and will die an anti-racist.
But when you believe that it is acceptable to be able to call the formation of Israel a racist act, you don't see that you have anything to apologize for...shoulder shrug....eye roll...
Either he doesn't think that anti-Semitism is racism, or he is downright lying.
The UK is now in the last chance saloon and there is no time left to negotiate a bespoke future arrangement with the EU. In order to avoid a disastrous "no deal" Brexit, the only choice is to accept one of the following 2 options: a) a Norway-style association agreement, remaining in the Single Market but not the Customs Union; or: b) a much looser relationship based on Canada's trade deal with the EU. However, in both these cases, the 6 counties would need to stay in the Customs Union.
The Chequers plan is clearly dead (if it was ever alive) because it fragments the Single Market, and the sooner the Maybot acknowledges this the better. Tusk provided an apt illustration by his excellent Instagram joke about cherry picking. Mrs T would have decisively chosen the Norway option - after all, she was the main promoter of the Single Market, but did not believe in Delors-style "ever closer union".
If this incompetent government doesn't face facts soon, bring on a GE - Corbyn would make a better PM, at least from a foreign policy perspective. Not only would Labour deal better with the EU, but there would be a re-orientation of the UK's relationships with criminal racist regimes elsewhere that foment violence, such as Myanmar and Saudi Arabia.
If people want EEA then they are going to have to get a new PM. May could not have been more explicit that it did not deliver on the result of the referendum. I am sure she would resign rather than do this simply because she would have absolutely no credibility left. Even if the fantasies about a cross party group came true, you can't make the PM negotiate whatever Parliament says. I can't see a realistic path to a PM and Government that will pursue EEA. If May resigns any replacement will be a Leaver.
People keep saying that if we go for CETA then NI will have to remain in the CU. This simply is not going to happen (apart from the DUP the whole nation would never wear it). If we go for CETA and the EU will not back down on the backstop, there will be no deal. Which is why No Deal is still the likely outcome.
No Deal likely leads to a second Referendum and Remain then wins.
CETA can only be done with a Norway style transition period while it is negotiated
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
What went wrong is that Remainers finally realised that there is no such thing as Soft Brexit.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
I would expect a hypothetical generic "remain vs no deal" referendum (in February?) to result in a massive slump in turnout. Leave voters would stay at home en masse because they would see it as a fix and the outcome inevitable (after all its sole purpose would be to ensure the UK remains in the EU and they would quite possibly expect the outcome to be ignored if it actually resulted in a Leave victory). We would be staying in the EU but on the back of zero democratic legitimacy. Where it goes from there, who know?
So what, even if Remain wins on a 30% turnout, Remain still wins
You think Leave won't organise to remove the whole bloody lot of them that orchestrated that? An they would have the British sense of fair play on their side this time.
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
I see the Remainers are back in la-la land today.
Far more likely than a second referendum is that the EU insist on the NI customs union, May refuses and basically sticks to her guns and recommends No Deal herself. The HoC can pass whatever resolution it likes - at that point she can simply ignore them and she won't be in the slightest danger of either being kicked out of the Tory party leadership or losing a VONC (as the DUP will be onside). I am absolutely not ruling this out after the EUs behaviour at Salzberg. If she really is motivated by her own survival, this is a sure way of doing it.
Mr. HYUFD, that's (the Brexiteers have pushed things too far line) just not true. The negotiations on our side are led by a Remainer, with a pro-Leave minister resigning from the department, and the EU's on the other side.
I agree the best solution is for Davis to take over, scrap Chequers, agree a transition deal and try for a Canada FTA in the transition.
However if we end up going to No Deal as the only scenario, certainly with no transition period a second referendum which Remain would win is almost inevitable
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
Yes, Brexiteers will have sadly killed Brexit by pushing further than the British people will stomach, they voted for a Deal Brexit, not a crash out No Deal Brexit with all the economic damage that will do
A Deal Brexit requires the EU to deal. If the EU won't deal - and by that, I mean on terms that don't require the UK to essentially be partitioned - then the British people will most definitely stomach a No Deal Brexit. They'll demand it!
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
I would expect a hypothetical generic "remain vs no deal" referendum (in February?) to result in a massive slump in turnout. Leave voters would stay at home en masse because they would see it as a fix and the outcome inevitable (after all its sole purpose would be to ensure the UK remains in the EU and they would quite possibly expect the outcome to be ignored if it actually resulted in a Leave victory). We would be staying in the EU but on the back of zero democratic legitimacy. Where it goes from there, who know?
So what, even if Remain wins on a 30% turnout, Remain still wins
You think Leave won't organise to remove the whole bloody lot of them that orchestrated that? An they would have the British sense of fair play on their side this time.
The elderly have voted to harm the future of the young while preserving and enhancing their own subsidies and benefits. Look at the photo posted of the coffin botherers in Bolton yesterday.
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
@archer101au What went wrong is that Remainers finally realised that there is no such thing as Soft Brexit.
What I think actually went wrong is that Theresa May believed Chequers was the only viable outcome and told EU leaders that. This irritated them. As far as they were concerned it was only a placeholder until they could get through the withdrawal agreement. They forgot to be polite about it.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
No it’s not. If Theresa May sticks to her guns, how does it get introduced and passed by the House of Commons?
An opposition party proposes it, Labour, LD, SNP and Green and enough Tory MPs like Soubry, Grieve, Morgan, Wollaston, Clarke, Neil etc vote for it. There is your Commons majority and it easily passes the Lords
So Corbyn needs to use an Opposition Day for it (and I’m not sure that the opposition can introduce legislation anyway)
And the government needs to allocate time for it.
Ok...
An opposition party on an Opposition Day, a backbench MP proposing it it could come from a number of sources.
The Government may even lose a vote of No Confidence, Soubry, Grieve etc would likely vote down the government and force a general election rather than accept No Deal without a referendum.
Mr. HYUFD, that's (the Brexiteers have pushed things too far line) just not true. The negotiations on our side are led by a Remainer, with a pro-Leave minister resigning from the department, and the EU's on the other side.
I agree the best solution is for Davis to take over, scrap Chequers, agree a transition deal and try for a Canada FTA in the transition.
However if we end up going to No Deal as the only scenario, certainly with no transition period a second referendum which Remain would win is almost inevitable
PLEASE try to understand. If the EU insist on the NI backstop (in the form of NI remaining in the CU), there is not going to be a withdrawal agreement or transition whoever is leader.
If the EU back down on the backstop, then all roads will lead to CETA (with as you say a transition period as planned).
Invited by Marr to look down the lens of the camera and personally apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism crisis, Mr Corbyn replied: ‘I’ll simply say this – I am an anti-racist and will die an anti-racist.
But when you believe that it is acceptable to be able to call the formation of Israel a racist act, you don't see that you have anything to apologize for...shoulder shrug....eye roll...
Did Marr ask May to look at the camera and apologise to the Windrush generation
Or look into the Camera and apologise to the disabled whose benefits she has cut
The UK is now in the last chance saloon and there is no time left to negotiate a bespoke future arrangement with the EU. In order to avoid a disastrous "no deal" Brexit, the only choice is to accept one of the following 2 options: a) a Norway-style association agreement, remaining in the Single Market but not the Customs Union; or: b) a much looser relationship based on Canada's trade deal with the EU. However, in both these cases, the 6 counties would need to stay in the Customs Union.
The Chequers plan is clearly dead (if it was ever alive) because it fragments the Single Market, and the sooner the Maybot acknowledges this the better. Tusk provided an apt illustration by his excellent Instagram joke about cherry picking. Mrs T would have decisively chosen the Norway option - after all, she was the main promoter of the Single Market, but did not believe in Delors-style "ever closer union".
If this incompetent government doesn't face facts soon, bring on a GE - Corbyn would make a better PM, at least from a foreign policy perspective. Not only would Labour deal better with the EU, but there would be a re-orientation of the UK's relationships with criminal racist regimes elsewhere that foment violence, such as Myanmar and Saudi Arabia.
If people want EEA then they are going to have to get a new PM. May could not have been more explicit that it did not deliver on the result of the referendum. I am sure she would resign rather than do this simply because she would have absolutely no credibility left. Even if the fantasies about a cross party group came true, you can't make the PM negotiate whatever Parliament says. I can't see a realistic path to a PM and Government that will pursue EEA. If May resigns any replacement will be a Leaver.
People keep saying that if we go for CETA then NI will have to remain in the CU. This simply is not going to happen (apart from the DUP the whole nation would never wear it). If we go for CETA and the EU will not back down on the backstop, there will be no deal. Which is why No Deal is still the likely outcome.
No Deal likely leads to a second Referendum and Remain then wins.
CETA can only be done with a Norway style transition period while it is negotiated
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
It may well do but the polls are clear, No Deal kills Brexit, Remain would win
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
I would expect a hypothetical generic "remain vs no deal" referendum (in February?) to result in a massive slump in turnout. Leave voters would stay at home en masse because they would see it as a fix and the outcome inevitable (after all its sole purpose would be to ensure the UK remains in the EU and they would quite possibly expect the outcome to be ignored if it actually resulted in a Leave victory). We would be staying in the EU but on the back of zero democratic legitimacy. Where it goes from there, who know?
So what, even if Remain wins on a 30% turnout, Remain still wins
You think Leave won't organise to remove the whole bloody lot of them that orchestrated that? An they would have the British sense of fair play on their side this time.
They may try do but there is no majority amongst the voters for No Deal
Mr. Matt, that's a rather ungracious comment. One might as well condemn the views of the young and write them off as worthless due to naivety and inexperience. Adults get to vote the way they like. Age doesn't make them right or wrong.
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
@archer101au What went wrong is that Remainers finally realised that there is no such thing as Soft Brexit.
What I think actually went wrong is that Theresa May believed Chequers was the only viable outcome and told EU leaders that. This irritated them. As far as they were concerned it was only a placeholder until they could get through the withdrawal agreement. They forgot to be polite about it.
Either way, there is still no such thing as Soft Brexit.
But if the EU thought that they are complete fools. A withdrawal agreement with a backstop, payment of money and no trade deal will never get through Parliament. Any deal with an NI only backstop is going to cause the DUP to no confidence the Government.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
Surely the one thing we can all agree on, is that there are no inevitabilities in terms of outcome or process?
I think it’s fair to say that a stitch-up by politicians that overturns the referendum result would most likely go down very badly, both in the country as a whole and within the Conservative Party in particular.
Mr. HYUFD, that's (the Brexiteers have pushed things too far line) just not true. The negotiations on our side are led by a Remainer, with a pro-Leave minister resigning from the department, and the EU's on the other side.
I agree the best solution is for Davis to take over, scrap Chequers, agree a transition deal and try for a Canada FTA in the transition.
However if we end up going to No Deal as the only scenario, certainly with no transition period a second referendum which Remain would win is almost inevitable
PLEASE try to understand. If the EU insist on the NI backstop (in the form of NI remaining in the CU), there is not going to be a withdrawal agreement or transition whoever is leader.
If the EU back down on the backstop, then all roads will lead to CETA (with as you say a transition period as planned).
Corbyn has made clear he backs NI remaining in a CU (and if he becomes PM it will be without the DUP), May was moving towards that in all but name.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
Yes, Brexiteers will have sadly killed Brexit by pushing further than the British people will stomach, they voted for a Deal Brexit, not a crash out No Deal Brexit with all the economic damage that will do
A Deal Brexit requires the EU to deal. If the EU won't deal - and by that, I mean on terms that don't require the UK to essentially be partitioned - then the British people will most definitely stomach a No Deal Brexit. They'll demand it!
Mr. Matt, that's a rather ungracious comment. One might as well condemn the views of the young and write them off as worthless due to naivety and inexperience. Adults get to vote the way they like. Age doesn't make them right or wrong.
Worthless santimonious sermonising. Where is the downside to the old from Brexit? It’s like a real life version of the People’s Friend.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
Surely the one thing we can all agree on, is that there are no inevitabilities in terms of outcome or process?
I think it’s fair to say that a stitch-up by politicians that overturns the referendum result would most likely go down very badly, both in the country as a whole and within the Conservative Party in particular.
It would not be overturning the referendum result which was based on a Deal Brexit, a No Deal Brexit is a different matter
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
@archer101au What went wrong is that Remainers finally realised that there is no such thing as Soft Brexit.
What I think actually went wrong is that Theresa May believed Chequers was the only viable outcome and told EU leaders that. This irritated them. As far as they were concerned it was only a placeholder until they could get through the withdrawal agreement. They forgot to be polite about it.
Either way, there is still no such thing as Soft Brexit.
But if the EU thought that they are complete fools. A withdrawal agreement with a backstop, payment of money and no trade deal will never get through Parliament. Any deal with an NI only backstop is going to cause the DUP to no confidence the Government.
The trade deal is SM+CU+VAT area. It's the only certainly available non chaotic outcome. But as Alastair points out, chaos may not be avoided.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
No it’s not. If Theresa May sticks to her guns, how does it get introduced and passed by the House of Commons?
An opposition party proposes it, Labour, LD, SNP and Green and enough Tory MPs like Soubry, Grieve, Morgan, Wollaston, Clarke, Neil etc vote for it. There is your Commons majority and it easily passes the Lords
So Corbyn needs to use an Opposition Day for it (and I’m not sure that the opposition can introduce legislation anyway)
And the government needs to allocate time for it.
Ok...
An opposition party on an Opposition Day, a backbench MP proposing it it could come from a number of sources.
The Government may even lose a vote of No Confidence, Soubry, Grieve etc would likely vote down the government and force a general election rather than accept No Deal without a referendum.
Backbench legisiation is allocated by ballot so you need to find someone amenable band strong willed enough to withstand the whips. And time is very limited.
Opposition legislation is treated the same as backbench legislation
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
I would expect a hypothetical generic "remain vs no deal" referendum (in February?) to result in a massive slump in turnout. Leave voters would stay at home en masse because they would see it as a fix and the outcome inevitable (after all its sole purpose would be to ensure the UK remains in the EU and they would quite possibly expect the outcome to be ignored if it actually resulted in a Leave victory). We would be staying in the EU but on the back of zero democratic legitimacy. Where it goes from there, who know?
So what, even if Remain wins on a 30% turnout, Remain still wins
You think Leave won't organise to remove the whole bloody lot of them that orchestrated that? An they would have the British sense of fair play on their side this time.
They may try do but there is no majority amongst the voters for No Deal
Your idea that it is "inevitable" that we have a second referendum if there is no deal runs up against one massive problem. It requires our political class to admit that they were not up to following instructions, incapable of negotiating a Brexit with the EU. Neither did they have the balls to actually deliver a No Deal Brexit when that failure to negotiate manifested itself.
The British people will be quite right to infer that the whole bloody lot of them are not fit for purpose, so lets start again with an anti-Establishment party that pledges to do as instructed. There will be an awful lot of careers ended by going for that second referendum.
Mr. Matt, you can equally ask what the upside for remaining would be. The elderly have shorter life expectancy and vastly greater experience. Not to mention, people can be intelligent or foolish at any age. The Cult of Youth is idiotic. Lots of young people are stupid. Lots of old people are wise. And vice versa.
We should weight arguments according to the power of reason of those who make them, not according to which demographically fashionable boxes they tick. Deriding voters for having the temerity to reach old age rather than dying is contemptible.
The whole basis of democracy is that people can legitimately reach differing judgements when presented with the same arguments and evidence. Pointing at the other side and castigating them as morally or intellectually inferior is not merely pejorative and unpersuasive, it undermines the very foundation of freedom of choice which is the bedrock of a democratic society.
Mr. Walker, you may be right that no deal, no deal that could be presented, and remaining all have no majority in the Commons.
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
Invited by Marr to look down the lens of the camera and personally apologise to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism crisis, Mr Corbyn replied: ‘I’ll simply say this – I am an anti-racist and will die an anti-racist.
But when you believe that it is acceptable to be able to call the formation of Israel a racist act, you don't see that you have anything to apologize for...shoulder shrug....eye roll...
Did Marr ask May to look at the camera and apologise to the Windrush generation
Or look into the Camera and apologise to the disabled whose benefits she has cut
The interview was a smear fest complete disgrace.
So because the Conservatives are *evil* (in your blinkered eyes at least), that makes it okay for Corbyn to be an anti-Semite?
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
I would expect a hypothetical generic "remain vs no deal" referendum (in February?) to result in a massive slump in turnout. Leave voters would stay at home en masse because they would see it as a fix and the outcome inevitable (after all its sole purpose would be to ensure the UK remains in the EU and they would quite possibly expect the outcome to be ignored if it actually resulted in a Leave victory). We would be staying in the EU but on the back of zero democratic legitimacy. Where it goes from there, who know?
So what, even if Remain wins on a 30% turnout, Remain still wins
You think Leave woide this time.
They may try do but there is no majority amongst the voters for No Deal
Your idea that it is "inevitable" that we have a second referendum if there is no deal runs up against one massive problem. It requires our political class to admit that they were not up to following instructions, incapable of negotiating a Brexit with the EU. Neither did they have the balls to actually deliver a No Deal Brexit when that failure to negotiate manifested itself.
The British people will be quite right to infer that the whole bloody lot of them are not fit for purpose, so lets start again with an anti-Establishment party that pledges to do as instructed. There will be an awful lot of careers ended by going for that second referendum.
Some of the 40-45% who back No Deal Brexit maybe.
However 55% would back Remain in the event of No Deal so the fact remains, No Deal kills Brexit. It would then just be a matter of when it kills Brexit ie at a second EU referendum or the next general election, not if
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
@archer101au What went wrong is that Remainers finally realised that there is no such thing as Soft Brexit.
What I think actually went wrong is that Theresa May believed Chequers was the only viable outcome and told EU leaders that. This irritated them. As far as they were concerned it was only a placeholder until they could get through the withdrawal agreement. They forgot to be polite about it.
Either way, there is still no such thing as Soft Brexit.
But if the EU thought that they are complete fools. A withdrawal agreement with a backstop, payment of money and no trade deal will never get through Parliament. Any deal with an NI only backstop is going to cause the DUP to no confidence the Government.
The trade deal is SM+CU+VAT area. It's the only certainly available non chaotic outcome. But as Alastair points out, chaos may not be avoided.
As I said earlier, May will never agree to that (she would resign first, given her public statements that it does not represent Brexit) so you need to find a new PM if you want that. And who would that be? If May falls any replacement will be a Leaver. So really your only chance of getting that deal is if there is a GE and Corbyn takes over. That does rely on Tory turkeys voting for Christmas. And of course if there was a GE May would not be Tory leader. I can't see any path for Corbyn becoming PM, not least because he won't win any election anyway. Oh, and don't forget he is a Leaver too.
CETA without a backstop will get through the HoC. I can't see anything else that will, other than the default.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
Surely the one thing we can all agree on, is that there are no inevitabilities in terms of outcome or process?
I think it’s fair to say that a stitch-up by politicians that overturns the referendum result would most likely go down very badly, both in the country as a whole and within the Conservative Party in particular.
It would not be overturning the referendum result which was based on a Deal Brexit, a No Deal Brexit is a different matter
But how does it happen, given the government, Parliament and schedule?
Mrs May lasts approximately a day in her position if she offers a second referendum, and in the (increasingly likely) no-Deal scenario Parliament is going to have to sit 18 hours a day for the first three months of next year to pass the necessary legislation and arrangements to avoid the cliff. Given that a no-deal scenario doesn’t become apparent until the end of November or maybe even December, when would a referendum happen given the need for primary legislation, campaign setups, finance etc.?
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
Mr. HYUFD, that's (the Brexiteers have pushed things too far line) just not true. The negotiations on our side are led by a Remainer, with a pro-Leave minister resigning from the department, and the EU's on the other side.
I agree the best solution is for Davis to take over, scrap Chequers, agree a transition deal and try for a Canada FTA in the transition.
However if we end up going to No Deal as the only scenario, certainly with no transition period a second referendum which Remain would win is almost inevitable
PLEASE try to understand. If the EU insist on the NI backstop (in the form of NI remaining in the CU), there is not going to be a withdrawal agreement or transition whoever is leader.
If the EU back down on the backstop, then all roads will lead to CETA (with as you say a transition period as planned).
Corbyn has made clear he backs NI remaining in a CU (and if he becomes PM it will be without the DUP), May was moving towards that in all but name.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
That is just gobbledygook. You can't be in a customs union 'in all but name' - you are or you are not. The backstop keeps NI in the SM, not just the CU. And you keep talking about the transition period without understanding that the withdrawal agreement is separate and the backstop needs to be included in that (you have been doing this for weeks and many people have tried to correct you, so I assume you just don't want to understand because it conflicts with your one talking point).
Your leader does not have a majority without the DUP. The DUP will not accept a NI backstop. That position has not changed in ten months. That is all you really need to understand.
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
No Deal will probably lead to a humiliating climbdown then whatever terms the EU states. A referendum would be the last thing a government would want in that situation. Chequers was in part designed to avoid that humiliation. Something went wrong in Salzburg.
@archer101au What went wrong is that Remainers finally realised that there is no such thing as Soft Brexit.
What I think actually went wrong is that Theresa May believed Chequers was the only viable outcome and told EU leaders that. This irritated them. As far as they were concerned it was only a placeholder until they could get through the withdrawal agreement. They forgot to be polite about it.
Either way, there is still no such thing as Soft Brexit.
But if the EU thought that they are complete fools. A withdrawal agreement with a backstop, payment of money and no trade deal will never get through Parliament. Any deal with an NI only backstop is going to cause the DUP to no confidence the Government.
The trade deal is SM+CU+VAT area. It's the only certainly available non chaotic outcome. But as Alastair points out, chaos may not be avoided.
As I said earlier, May will never agree to that (she would resign first, given her public statements that it does not represent Brexit) so you need to find a new PM if you want that. And who would that be? If May falls any replacement will be a Leaver. So really your only chance of getting that deal is if there is a GE and Corbyn takes over. That does rely on Tory turkeys voting for Christmas. And of course if there was a GE May would not be Tory leader. I can't see any path for Corbyn becoming PM, not least because he won't win any election anyway. Oh, and don't forget he is a Leaver too.
CETA without a backstop will get through the HoC. I can't see anything else that will, other than the default.
The withdrawal agreement without a backstop will get through the HoC. It won't get past the EU. This leads to an unsustainable No Deal, which after a period of chaos will inevitably result in giving in to the EU terms. As I say, the only non chaotic outcome is expressing an intention to go for Norway+, this neutering the backstop.
It's a highly suboptimal situation that I voted Remain to avoid.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
It's the backstop, stupid!
No deal equals no backstop.
The backstop in the draft agreement is unacceptable to the UK. Whichever civil servant smuggled it into the agreement thought they were being clever - but they were being stupid.
Article 50 makes No Deal (WTO) the default position.
Remainers need to know that.
So do Leavers.
I know than many Leavers do (or can) live outside the UK, but at least some of them live in the UK and cannot emigrate. This isn't an academic argument, it's real life: if there are bad effects from No Deal then we will suffer together. To mangle Keith Joseph, a receding tide lowers all boats.
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
It's the backstop, stupid!
Norway (+CU) transition renders backstop moot.
However, May doesn’t have the political capital to negotiate this.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Maybe so. But Blair was the alternative then, not Corbyn.
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
I see the Remainers are back in la-la land today.
Far more likely than a second referendum is that the EU insist on the NI customs union, May refuses and basically sticks to her guns and recommends No Deal herself. The HoC can pass whatever resolution it likes - at that point she can simply ignore them and she won't be in the slightest danger of either being kicked out of the Tory party leadership or losing a VONC (as the DUP will be onside). I am absolutely not ruling this out after the EUs behaviour at Salzberg. If she really is motivated by her own survival, this is a sure way of doing it.
This is impossible. If May were to move to a position of publicly advocating no-deal, held in place by the ERG, the Tory party would split.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Maybe so. But Blair was the alternative then, not Corbyn.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Exactly so. Which is why a united Tory party wouldn't survive it.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
Mr. HYUFD, that's (the Brexiteers have pushed things too far line) just not true. The negotiations on our side are led by a Remainer, with a pro-Leave minister resigning from the department, and the EU's on the other side.
I agree the best solution is for Davis to take over, scrap Chequers, agree a transition deal and try for a Canada FTA in the transition.
However if we end up going to No Deal as the only scenario, certainly with no transition period a second referendum which Remain would win is almost inevitable
PLEASE try to understand. If the EU insist on the NI backstop (in the form of NI remaining in the CU), there is not going to be a withdrawal agreement or transition whoever is leader.
If the EU back down on the backstop, then all roads will lead to CETA (with as you say a transition period as planned).
Corbyn has made clear he backs NI remaining in a CU (and if he becomes PM it will be without the DUP), May was moving towards that in all but name.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
That is just gobbledygook. You can't be in a customs union 'in all but name' - you are or you are not. The backstop keeps NI in the SM, not just the CU. And you keep talking about the transition period without understanding that the withdrawal agreement is separate and the backstop needs to be included in that (you have been doing this for weeks and many people have tried to correct you, so I assume you just don't want to understand because it conflicts with your one talking point).
Your leader does not have a majority without the DUP. The DUP will not accept a NI backstop. That position has not changed in ten months. That is all you really need to understand.
The backstop only applies if the transition period ends without a Deal that avoids a hard border. As long as we remain in the transition period in practical terms it is irrelevant as the whole UK would still be in the SM and CU anyway including NI.
In terms of the backstop if either whatever technical terms proposed are not accepted by Barnier or a CU for NI proposal is still refused by the DUP then it may be the latter is either forced through by a new Tory leader or even a PM Corbyn after a new general election overruling the DUP to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
Mr. Matt, that's a rather ungracious comment. One might as well condemn the views of the young and write them off as worthless due to naivety and inexperience. Adults get to vote the way they like. Age doesn't make them right or wrong.
Worthless santimonious sermonising. Where is the downside to the old from Brexit? It’s like a real life version of the People’s Friend.
Scarcely half of the under 25s place Brexit within their top 3 concerns.
Their enthusiasm last year for Jezza was most related to the offer of free tuition fees.
You’re making an assumption. The underlying point is taxpayers vs tax takers.
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
Surely the one thing we can all agree on, is that there are no inevitabilities in terms of outcome or process?
I think it’s fair to say that a stitch-up by politicians that overturns the referendum result would most likely go down very badly, both in the country as a whole and within the Conservative Party in particular.
It would not be overturning the referendum result which was based on a Deal Brexit, a No Deal Brexit is a different matter
But how does it happen, given the government, Parliament and schedule?
Mrs May lasts approximately a day in her position if she offers a second referendum, and in the (increasingly likely) no-Deal scenario Parliament is going to have to sit 18 hours a day for the first three months of next year to pass the necessary legislation and arrangements to avoid the cliff. Given that a no-deal scenario doesn’t become apparent until the end of November or maybe even December, when would a referendum happen given the need for primary legislation, campaign setups, finance etc.?
If it had to happen by March a new referendum would have to happen by March.
Otherwise Soubry, Grieve etc would likely vote down the government and even vote with Corbyn to force a general election by Christmas if No Deal was forced through by the government without a Referendum.
That general election would then likely see Corbyn become PM propped up by the LDs and SNP with a mandate to go back to the negotiating table with the EU or hold a second referendum
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
Do you believe, really believe, that they have any sentient comprehension of what no deal would mean in reality?
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
Not much, that 40% are largely ideologues however they are not enough either to win a majority for No Deal at a general election or to win a majority for No Deal in a second EU referendum
Corbyn suggests he would prefer a general election to a second referendum and thinks he can get enough Tory MPs to vote for one so he becomes PM by Christmas, trying to use a customs union to resolve the Irish border issue.
However interestingly he also suggests if the Labour conference votes for a second EU referendum he would be bound by that. If there is No Deal and Labour, LD, SNP MPs and Tory rebels like Soubry and Grieve vote for one it would therefore be more likely than not
He prevaricated over the second referendum and on both Ridge and Marr leading labour politicians including Lisa Nandy and Rebecca Long Bailey clearly do not support a second referendum.
Add in the time frame a second referendum is not going to happen
Depends what the Labour conference votes for, If there is no Deal a second referendum is inevitable.
Surely the one thing we can all agree on, is that there are no inevitabilities in terms of outcome or process?
I think it’s fair to say that a stitch-up by politicians that overturns the referendum result would most likely go down very badly, both in the country as a whole and within the Conservative Party in particular.
It would not be overturning the referendum result which was based on a Deal Brexit, a No Deal Brexit is a different matter
If it had to happen by March a new referendum would have to happen by March.
Otherwise Soubry, Grieve etc would likely vote down the government and even vote with Corbyn to force a general election by Christmas if No Deal was forced through by the government without a Referendum.
That general election would then likely see Corbyn become PM propped up by the LDs and SNP with a mandate to go back to the negotiating table with the EU or hold a second referendum
Difficult to see an election this year now . Under the FTPA rules Parliament has to be sitting with at least 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day.If the No Deal scenario arises at all, it will not become apparent until well into November. January or February 2019 would be a bit more likely.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
It's things like booking flights without knowing whether they will take off. Empty supermarket shelves. Voters are only paying slight attention and put up with a lot. But they don't tolerate outright chaos.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
Do you believe, really believe, that they have any sentient comprehension of what no deal would mean in reality?
Given the endless warnings of economic apocalypse I would imagine so but they are ideologues on the whole for whom regaining sovereignty and cutting immigration come above all else, the most diehard Leavers are as ideological and fanatical as the most diehard Scottish nationalists
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Maybe so. But Blair was the alternative then, not Corbyn.
Tbf it was John Smith. A rather more leftish figure...but your point still stands, even though I reckon Smith would have won handily in 97 anyway.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
The consequences of No Deal will be relatively mild, assuming the UK Government respond appropriately. That is the bit that worries me.
It would need an aggressive and creative response that deliberately exploits the new advantages of the UK as against the EU. Unilateral free trade should be declared for a limited period whilst more permanent trade deals are done, with UK manufacturing bailed out as necessary. Large cuts in corporation tax should be made along with massive reductions in regulation, especially in services. Taxes on primary investment (as opposed to profits on secondary investment) should be slashed. Business rates should be cut. Future trade deals should be predicated on UK access to overseas services markets. If the EU take punitive an unnecessary action against the UK (for example by delaying UK imports or blocking flights) the UK should retaliate by blocking finance for the EU from the City of London. They will soon realise this is a zero sum game for them and a CETA deal will get trashed out pretty quickly.
The problem is likely to be that the civil service will do everything they can to block such moves and May does not have the vision to carry it out. In particular, exploiting the EUs weaknesses is something that the establishment will do everything to avoid as they will be desperate to 'keep them onside' so that eventual efforts can be made to rejoin.
So after two years of furious wanking that resulted in nothing more than a puff of wind and a sharp pain our options are still exactly what Barnier told us they were at the start: Norway (with FoM), Canada (with NI border), WTO/No Deal (with cannibalism) or Remain while feeling a bit stupid.
None of these things can happen, yet one of them must. I'm no political scientist but I think everything might be completely fucked. Bien joué grand, leavers. Bien joué grand.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
I see the Remainers are back in la-la land today.
Far more likely than a second referendum is that the EU insist on the NI customs union, May refuses and basically sticks to her guns and recommends No Deal herself. The HoC can pass whatever resolution it likes - at that point she can simply ignore them and she won't be in the slightest danger of either being kicked out of the Tory party leadership or losing a VONC (as the DUP will be onside). I am absolutely not ruling this out after the EUs behaviour at Salzberg. If she really is motivated by her own survival, this is a sure way of doing it.
This is impossible. If May were to move to a position of publicly advocating no-deal, held in place by the ERG, the Tory party would split.
As the EU won't have offered a deal, aside from their current annexing of NI, pay us £39bn for nothing, & keep paying your dues budget contribution for ever, what can she do?
So after two years of furious wanking that resulted in nothing more than a puff of wind and a sharp pain our options are still exactly what Barnier told us they were at the start: Norway (with FoM), Canada (with NI border), WTO/No Deal (with cannibalism) or Remain while feeling a bit stupid.
None of these things can happen, yet one of them must. I'm no political scientist but I think everything might be completely fucked. Bien joué grand, leavers. Bien joué grand.
Quite so. But it does make Brexit somewhat fascinating in a morbid way. I would prefer it wasn't happening to us though.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
The consequences of No Deal will be relatively mild, assuming the UK Government respond appropriately. That is the bit that worries me.
It would need an aggressive and creative response that deliberately exploits the new advantages of the UK as against the EU. Unilateral free trade should be declared for a limited period whilst more permanent trade deals are done, with UK manufacturing bailed out as necessary. Large cuts in corporation tax should be made along with massive reductions in regulation, especially in services. Taxes on primary investment (as opposed to profits on secondary investment) should be slashed. Business rates should be cut. Future trade deals should be predicated on UK access to overseas services markets. If the EU take punitive an unnecessary action against the UK (for example by delaying UK imports or blocking flights) the UK should retaliate by blocking finance for the EU from the City of London. They will soon realise this is a zero sum game for them and a CETA deal will get trashed out pretty quickly.
The problem is likely to be that the civil service will do everything they can to block such moves and May does not have the vision to carry it out. In particular, exploiting the EUs weaknesses is something that the establishment will do everything to avoid as they will be desperate to 'keep them onside' so that eventual efforts can be made to rejoin.
May will not be PM if we have a no deal Brexit. Partly for the fears you espouse.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
Corbyn has made clear he backs NI remaining in a CU (and if he becomes PM it will be without the DUP), May was moving towards that in all but name.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
That is just gobbledygook. You can't be in a customs union 'in all but name' - you are or you are not. The backstop keeps NI in the SM, not just the CU. And you keep talking about the transition period without understanding that the withdrawal agreement is separate and the backstop needs to be included in that (you have been doing this for weeks and many people have tried to correct you, so I assume you just don't want to understand because it conflicts with your one talking point).
Your leader does not have a majority without the DUP. The DUP will not accept a NI backstop. That position has not changed in ten months. That is all you really need to understand.
The backstop only applies if the transition period ends without a Deal that avoids a hard border. As long as we remain in the transition period in practical terms it is irrelevant as the whole UK would still be in the SM and CU anyway including NI.
In terms of the backstop if either whatever technical terms proposed are not accepted by Barnier or a CU for NI proposal is still refused by the DUP then it may be the latter is either forced through by a new Tory leader or even a PM Corbyn after a new general election overruling the DUP to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
You are still talking in circles. The EU have expressly ruled out the transition period being extended as they are concerned it will produce de facto SM benefits without membership.
Under CETA, the NI backstop will have to kick in (if it was agreed) because regulations would diverge. The backstop has to be agreed now, not during transition. So the DUP veto now is all that is relevant. In fact, the Tory party as a whole will not agree a NI backstop in any event.
So as I keep explaining to you, if the NI-only backstop stays on the table, there will be no deal and no transition regardless of what else you think might be nice in the future. The only NI backstop that might work would be one where NI is not under the EU customs union - eg the EU back down.
HYUFD is correct. The weight of parliamentary opinion will simply not allow a no-deal through, and then all roads to lead to the second ref.
I see the Remainers are back in la-la land today.
Far more likely than a second referendum is that the EU insist on the NI customs union, May refuses and basically sticks to her guns and recommends No Deal herself. The HoC can pass whatever resolution it likes - at that point she can simply ignore them and she won't be in the slightest danger of either being kicked out of the Tory party leadership or losing a VONC (as the DUP will be onside). I am absolutely not ruling this out after the EUs behaviour at Salzberg. If she really is motivated by her own survival, this is a sure way of doing it.
This is impossible. If May were to move to a position of publicly advocating no-deal, held in place by the ERG, the Tory party would split.
As the EU won't have offered a deal, aside from their current annexing of NI, pay us £39bn for nothing, & keep paying your dues budget contribution for ever, what can she do?
Quite. The Tory party will not split if May declares no deal. The leavers will support her and the remainers will have no choice - after all she is one of them and could not get a deal, what are they going to say? EEA is against the manifesto commitment and May would resign rather than do that, after which they would get a Leaver as leader.
I would expect May to sellout rather than follow her word and go for no deal if the EU insist on the NI backstop, but I can't rule out that she will not, and if she does the Remainers are stuck with it. Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
The consequences of No Deal will be relatively mild, assuming the UK Government respond appropriately. That is the bit that worries me.
It would need an aggressive and creative response that deliberately exploits the new advantages of the UK as against the EU. Unilateral free trade should be declared for a limited period whilst more permanent trade deals are done, with UK manufacturing bailed out as necessary. Large cuts in corporation tax should be made along with massive reductions in regulation, especially in services. Taxes on primary investment (as opposed to profits on secondary investment) should be slashed. Business rates should be cut. Future trade deals should be predicated on UK access to overseas services markets. If the EU take punitive an unnecessary action against the UK (for example by delaying UK imports or blocking flights) the UK should retaliate by blocking finance for the EU from the City of London. They will soon realise this is a zero sum game for them and a CETA deal will get trashed out pretty quickly.
The problem is likely to be that the civil service will do everything they can to block such moves and May does not have the vision to carry it out. In particular, exploiting the EUs weaknesses is something that the establishment will do everything to avoid as they will be desperate to 'keep them onside' so that eventual efforts can be made to rejoin.
It doesn't solve any of the No Deal problems, such as broken supply chains or contractual uncertainty. The government would also run out of money and not be able to pay pensions and so on. Apart from that, great plan.
Corbyn has made clear he backs NI remaining in a CU (and if he becomes PM it will be without the DUP), May was moving towards that in all but name.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
That is just gobbledygook. You can't be in a customs union 'in all but name' - you are or you are not. The backstop keeps NI in the SM, not just the CU. And you keep talking about the transition period without understanding that the withdrawal agreement is separate and the backstop needs to be included in that (you have been doing this for weeks and many people have tried to correct you, so I assume you just don't want to understand because it conflicts with your one talking point).
Your leader does not have a majority without the DUP. The DUP will not accept a NI backstop. That position has not changed in ten months. That is all you really need to understand.
The backstop only applies if the transition period ends without a Deal that avoids a hard border. As long as we remain in the transition period in practical terms it is irrelevant as the whole UK would still be in the SM and CU anyway including NI.
In terms of the backstop if either whatever technical terms proposed are not accepted by Barnier or a CU for NI proposal is still refused by the DUP then it may be the latter is either forced through by a new Tory leader or even a PM Corbyn after a new general election overruling the DUP to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
You are still talking in circles. The EU have expressly ruled out the transition period being extended as they are concerned it will produce de facto SM benefits without membership.
Under CETA, the NI backstop will have to kick in (if it was agreed) because regulations would diverge. The backstop has to be agreed now, not during transition. So the DUP veto now is all that is relevant. In fact, the Tory party as a whole will not agree a NI backstop in any event.
So as I keep explaining to you, if the NI-only backstop stays on the table, there will be no deal and no transition regardless of what else you think might be nice in the future. The only NI backstop that might work would be one where NI is not under the EU customs union - eg the EU back down.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
So after two years of furious wanking that resulted in nothing more than a puff of wind and a sharp pain our options are still exactly what Barnier told us they were at the start: Norway (with FoM), Canada (with NI border), WTO/No Deal (with cannibalism) or Remain while feeling a bit stupid.
None of these things can happen, yet one of them must. I'm no political scientist but I think everything might be completely fucked. Bien joué grand, leavers. Bien joué grand.
Is the cannibalism compulsory?, and importantly, are we allowed pineapple on our gammon?
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
I keep reading there is no majority for No Deal in Parliament, but is there a majority for (any) Deal?
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU. Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
A Norway style transition then negotiate CETA is by far the most sensible suggestion
I have been saying this since straight after the referendum (although my own pref is to Remain).
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
It's the backstop, stupid!
Norway (+CU) transition renders backstop moot.
However, May doesn’t have the political capital to negotiate this.
The only mandate May has is based on the 2017 election where she pledged we were leaving the CU. She doesn't have the mandate to negotiate it. Nobody does - Labour were also out of THE CU, although apparently the unicorns would arrive, pulling A CU on a cart behind them.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
All economics is politics ultimately.
Disagree. I think the argument that all politics is ultimately economics is a better argument but even there you can argue about social policy. Economics is reality. Some things work (eg capitalism) and some things don't (eg socialism) no matter how many times you try or how many excuses are made. Political will can resist economics, sometimes for extended periods as we saw in the Soviet bloc, but ultimately reality intrudes. Black Wednesday was an example of that.
Comments
Otherwise if Remain won a second referendum it would be negotiations to rejoin the EU, Brexit would be dead
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6198339/Corbyn-REFUSES-say-sorry-Labour-anti-Semitism.html
But when you believe that it is acceptable to be able to call the formation of Israel a racist act, you don't see that you have anything to apologize for...shoulder shrug....eye roll...
It’s not “the chaps think it’s time now”
It’s “the chaps have done the counting and think you are going to lose. More dignified not to stand”
And Dennis would have been important - as Philip May will be when counselling his wife on the right time for her to step down
And the government needs to allocate time for it.
Ok...
The sight of hungry Venezuelan migrants travelling along country roads has become commonplace in South America. We accompany a mother of two as she faces the first test of her resolve, crossing a freezing mountain range known as the Paramo de Berlin on foot.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-45606239/long-watch-what-drives-a-mother-to-cross-south-america-on-foot
Far more likely than a second referendum is that the EU insist on the NI customs union, May refuses and basically sticks to her guns and recommends No Deal herself. The HoC can pass whatever resolution it likes - at that point she can simply ignore them and she won't be in the slightest danger of either being kicked out of the Tory party leadership or losing a VONC (as the DUP will be onside). I am absolutely not ruling this out after the EUs behaviour at Salzberg. If she really is motivated by her own survival, this is a sure way of doing it.
However if we end up going to No Deal as the only scenario, certainly with no transition period a second referendum which Remain would win is almost inevitable
Fair play has long gone.
What I think actually went wrong is that Theresa May believed Chequers was the only viable outcome and told EU leaders that. This irritated them. As far as they were concerned it was only a placeholder until they could get through the withdrawal agreement. They forgot to be polite about it.
The Government may even lose a vote of No Confidence, Soubry, Grieve etc would likely vote down the government and force a general election rather than accept No Deal without a referendum.
If the EU back down on the backstop, then all roads will lead to CETA (with as you say a transition period as planned).
Or look into the Camera and apologise to the disabled whose benefits she has cut
The interview was a smear fest complete disgrace.
But if the EU thought that they are complete fools. A withdrawal agreement with a backstop, payment of money and no trade deal will never get through Parliament. Any deal with an NI only backstop is going to cause the DUP to no confidence the Government.
I think it’s fair to say that a stitch-up by politicians that overturns the referendum result would most likely go down very badly, both in the country as a whole and within the Conservative Party in particular.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-men-and-women-who-plotted-to-stab-britain-in-the-back-during-wwii/?utm_source=The+Weekend+Edition&utm_campaign=weekend-edition-2018-09-23&utm_medium=email
Remain would win 55% to 45% for a No Deal Brexit.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7
Opposition legislation is treated the same as backbench legislation
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament
It looks like Opposition Days are for discussion not legislation
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/opposition-days/
I completely believe Corbyn’s preferred outcome at this juncture is No Deal as it would likely result in civil emergency, the fall of the government, and a Corbyn administration.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem’s might potentially see No Deal as a route back into the EU.
Likewise the SNP, with the added bonus of damaging pro-Union sentiment.
So it is down to the Tories.
Need to choose from (1) CETA+CU or (2) Norway+CU, and potentially the promise of a referendum too to ensure the deal can pass in Parliament.
The British people will be quite right to infer that the whole bloody lot of them are not fit for purpose, so lets start again with an anti-Establishment party that pledges to do as instructed. There will be an awful lot of careers ended by going for that second referendum.
We should weight arguments according to the power of reason of those who make them, not according to which demographically fashionable boxes they tick. Deriding voters for having the temerity to reach old age rather than dying is contemptible.
The whole basis of democracy is that people can legitimately reach differing judgements when presented with the same arguments and evidence. Pointing at the other side and castigating them as morally or intellectually inferior is not merely pejorative and unpersuasive, it undermines the very foundation of freedom of choice which is the bedrock of a democratic society.
Mr. Walker, you may be right that no deal, no deal that could be presented, and remaining all have no majority in the Commons.
But it all seemed to be a bit soft, and he got away with a fair amount of mythmaking.
Okkkayyyy ...
However 55% would back Remain in the event of No Deal so the fact remains, No Deal kills Brexit. It would then just be a matter of when it kills Brexit ie at a second EU referendum or the next general election, not if
CETA without a backstop will get through the HoC. I can't see anything else that will, other than the default.
Mrs May lasts approximately a day in her position if she offers a second referendum, and in the (increasingly likely) no-Deal scenario Parliament is going to have to sit 18 hours a day for the first three months of next year to pass the necessary legislation and arrangements to avoid the cliff. Given that a no-deal scenario doesn’t become apparent until the end of November or maybe even December, when would a referendum happen given the need for primary legislation, campaign setups, finance etc.?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/23/dominic-raab-rules-out-snap-general-election-to-save-mays-brexit-plan
However, the Tories will not allow May to negotiate this (it would be a different matter for Johnson, Gove or Davis).
Remainers need to know that.
Your leader does not have a majority without the DUP. The DUP will not accept a NI backstop. That position has not changed in ten months. That is all you really need to understand.
It's a highly suboptimal situation that I voted Remain to avoid.
The backstop in the draft agreement is unacceptable to the UK. Whichever civil servant smuggled it into the agreement thought they were being clever - but they were being stupid.
I know than many Leavers do (or can) live outside the UK, but at least some of them live in the UK and cannot emigrate. This isn't an academic argument, it's real life: if there are bad effects from No Deal then we will suffer together. To mangle Keith Joseph, a receding tide lowers all boats.
However, May doesn’t have the political capital to negotiate this.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1043774390738083840
Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Exactly so. Which is why a united Tory party wouldn't survive it.
In terms of the backstop if either whatever technical terms proposed are not accepted by Barnier or a CU for NI proposal is still refused by the DUP then it may be the latter is either forced through by a new Tory leader or even a PM Corbyn after a new general election overruling the DUP to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
Otherwise Soubry, Grieve etc would likely vote down the government and even vote with Corbyn to force a general election by Christmas if No Deal was forced through by the government without a Referendum.
That general election would then likely see Corbyn become PM propped up by the LDs and SNP with a mandate to go back to the negotiating table with the EU or hold a second referendum
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
It would need an aggressive and creative response that deliberately exploits the new advantages of the UK as against the EU. Unilateral free trade should be declared for a limited period whilst more permanent trade deals are done, with UK manufacturing bailed out as necessary. Large cuts in corporation tax should be made along with massive reductions in regulation, especially in services. Taxes on primary investment (as opposed to profits on secondary investment) should be slashed. Business rates should be cut. Future trade deals should be predicated on UK access to overseas services markets. If the EU take punitive an unnecessary action against the UK (for example by delaying UK imports or blocking flights) the UK should retaliate by blocking finance for the EU from the City of London. They will soon realise this is a zero sum game for them and a CETA deal will get trashed out pretty quickly.
The problem is likely to be that the civil service will do everything they can to block such moves and May does not have the vision to carry it out. In particular, exploiting the EUs weaknesses is something that the establishment will do everything to avoid as they will be desperate to 'keep them onside' so that eventual efforts can be made to rejoin.
None of these things can happen, yet one of them must. I'm no political scientist but I think everything might be completely fucked. Bien joué grand, leavers. Bien joué grand.
Under CETA, the NI backstop will have to kick in (if it was agreed) because regulations would diverge. The backstop has to be agreed now, not during transition. So the DUP veto now is all that is relevant. In fact, the Tory party as a whole will not agree a NI backstop in any event.
So as I keep explaining to you, if the NI-only backstop stays on the table, there will be no deal and no transition regardless of what else you think might be nice in the future. The only NI backstop that might work would be one where NI is not under the EU customs union - eg the EU back down.
I would expect May to sellout rather than follow her word and go for no deal if the EU insist on the NI backstop, but I can't rule out that she will not, and if she does the Remainers are stuck with it. Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.