... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border
The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.
Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).
Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.
1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals 2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board 3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ
This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.
Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
No, Labour will vote against anything the government proposes (though some of their MPs might vote with the government, or abstain).
Corbyn cares only about the government falling.
And that's his Achilles heel. He has to escalate when we get to the crisis over the WA ratification but he can always be outbid by a second referendum.
Why would the EU want Corbyn to vote down a deal they are prepared to sign with May ?
Spoiler - they wont.
So the guns of the EU will be trained on Labour. As Mrs May has found out - that can make for discomfort in the media.
I'm sure the threat of a few bad headlines in the Daily Mail will make all the difference to Corbyn's stance........
First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.
And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.
This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.
Lab's position is, rightly, that the government have messed everything up monumentally and, if given a go, Lab would sort Brexit out in short order to everyone's satisfaction. Any chaos would be laid at the feet of the current government because Labour would rightly say that they engineered the whole situation and in any case, the deal would have been worse for the country than whatever chaos transpires.
There will be a million ways that Lab will say that it is all the Cons fault.
You or I may be alive to the nuances of the situation, but Lab is more concerned with getting into power. Conversely, I think that nationalising the utilities, amongst other Corbyn policies would bring about chaos. I don't think that they wouldn't be entitled to enact those policies.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.
And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.
This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.
The consequences are not as direct as people imagine. Voting against the WA merely increases the political crisis but it doesn't automatically mean we leave with no deal, nor does it take the WA off the table.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
Corbs said "Let me also reach out to the Prime Minister, who is currently doing the negotiating. Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal."
The only problem with that is that May would never get it past the Tory MPs. And Corbyn knows it. How cynical can you get?
I think she'd get a majority of Tory MPs in favour of it. Particularly with bumbling Boris as the alternative. And she'd get most Labour MPs in favour also, so it would easily pass in the Commons.
... and the EU will accept the UK's proposals for non-intrusive enforcement at the land border
The UK hasn't made any such proposals. The UK is insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border at all.
Yes, precisely. That's what I meant. (For that matter the Irish government and the EU are also insisting on no infrastructure or checks at the land border, for which they need a deal according to their own logic).
Here's some more detail on the UK's backstop proposal - a UK wide customs union and an Irish sea regulatory border.
1 The UK stays in the Customs Union. So goodbye to the fantasy of bigger better trade deals 2 NornIron stays aligned to EU regulations, which means checks between GB and NI. So goodbye to the DUP being on board 3 Practically speaking GB stays aligned to EU regulations in almost all things to avoid the chaos of a red tape mountain and paperwork checks. Goodbye to everyone demanding we stop adhering to the ECJ
This "plan" will either be dead before the end of conference. Or May will be.
Isn't it clear enough? We need to stay in the Single Market and do a customs deal. No other solution avoids the NI border OR GB border issue and avoids burying British business under a red tape and extra costs burden.
"The proposed compromise revolves around the distinction between customs checks and regulatory checks. May wants to keep the whole U.K. -- including Northern Ireland -- inside the EU tariff regime as part of the backstop plan.
The EU is currently opposed to allowing this, and wants only Northern Ireland to remain inside its customs territory after Brexit. That will need to change if there is to be a deal, the official said."
Has anyone told the EU that they're supposed to be trying to treat us as a sort of vassal state and keep us in that Customs Union? Because it feels like we're a cat who insists they want to go out and scratches at the door, sees it's rainy outside, and is being nudged outside by a large foot whilst yowling "stop trying to make me stay indoors!"
First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.
And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.
This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.
The consequences are not as direct as people imagine. Voting against the WA merely increases the political crisis but it doesn't automatically mean we leave with no deal, nor does it take the WA off the table.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
Corbs said "Let me also reach out to the Prime Minister, who is currently doing the negotiating. Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal."
The only problem with that is that May would never get it past the Tory MPs. And Corbyn knows it. How cynical can you get?
I think she'd get a majority of Tory MPs in favour of it. Particularly with bumbling Boris as the alternative. And she'd get most Labour MPs in favour also, so it would easily pass in the Commons.
But for weeks the refrain from all sides has been:
She won't get a deal through parliament. There is not a majority for any deal in Parliament.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
Indeed it is, but they think the threat of no deal is the best way to get a second referendum to reverse the result of the first. Both Adonis and Umunna have taken this position publicly in the last few weeks. And as others have said, Labour will blame the chaos on the Tories and this will resonate because Brexit is a Tory project and their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Corbs said "Let me also reach out to the Prime Minister, who is currently doing the negotiating. Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal."
The only problem with that is that May would never get it past the Tory MPs. And Corbyn knows it. How cynical can you get?
I think she'd get a majority of Tory MPs in favour of it. Particularly with bumbling Boris as the alternative. And she'd get most Labour MPs in favour also, so it would easily pass in the Commons.
But for weeks the refrain from all sides has been:
She won't get a deal through parliament. There is not a majority for any deal in Parliament.
Has something changed?
I haven't changed - I have been consistent in saying she will get her deal through the HOC
Anna Soubry said today she would find it difficult to vote down
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
You are probably right that in that scenario there would be an extension, although that consideration is one which itself will discourage the ERG tendency from voting against any possible deal. In any case, an extension doesn't really help resolve things.
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
You are probably right that in that scenario there would be an extension, although that consideration is one which itself will discourage the ERG tendency from voting against any possible deal. In any case, an extension doesn't help resolve things.
The resolution is a referendum with two choices: Ratify/Revoke.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
What would be the point in asking for an Article 50 extension? If Parliament won't agree any specific deal by March 29th, what would change if an extra 1 months was available? Or 3 months? Or 6 months?
That's the question Parliament would ask before trying to push it through, and the question the EU would ask before granting it. If it were, say, to allow time to put a deal to referendum - sure; there's a point to it. If it's simply because the UK couldn't find a solution for a Deal, there would have to be strong indications of a route to a Deal becoming apparent if an extension were to be granted. In the scenario given, that's not true.
" (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)" No. She wouldn't. It would be political suicide for the Conservatives: regardless of how devastating a No Deal crashout Brexit would be, if it were to be averted at the last moment by total surrender, a huge proportion of Leavers and Conservatives would believe it wouldn't have been that bad. There would be a "Stab in the Back" mythology springing up instantly and May would be turfed out in ignominy and the Conservative Party might even split.
And she would know that in advance. Regardless of what may or may not be better for the country, she won't voluntarily destroy her own party and Premiership - not when she and they can blame someone else for it.
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
You are probably right that in that scenario there would be an extension, although that consideration is one which itself will discourage the ERG tendency from voting against any possible deal. In any case, an extension doesn't really help resolve things.
Why would the EU offer an extension if there was no real change in the UK's position on the horizon.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
Corbs said "Let me also reach out to the Prime Minister, who is currently doing the negotiating. Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal."
The only problem with that is that May would never get it past the Tory MPs. And Corbyn knows it. How cynical can you get?
I think she'd get a majority of Tory MPs in favour of it. Particularly with bumbling Boris as the alternative. And she'd get most Labour MPs in favour also, so it would easily pass in the Commons.
But for weeks the refrain from all sides has been:
She won't get a deal through parliament. There is not a majority for any deal in Parliament.
Has something changed?
Only the requirements that "a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards". That would pass, but won't be offered by the Tories.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
What would be the point in asking for an Article 50 extension? If Parliament won't agree any specific deal by March 29th, what would change if an extra 1 months was available? Or 3 months? Or 6 months?
That's the question Parliament would ask before trying to push it through, and the question the EU would ask before granting it. If it were, say, to allow time to put a deal to referendum - sure; there's a point to it. If it's simply because the UK couldn't find a solution for a Deal, there would have to be strong indications of a route to a Deal becoming apparent if an extension were to be granted. In the scenario given, that's not true.
" (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)" No. She wouldn't. It would be political suicide for the Conservatives: regardless of how devastating a No Deal crashout Brexit would be, if it were to be averted at the last moment by total surrender, a huge proportion of Leavers and Conservatives would believe it wouldn't have been that bad. There would be a "Stab in the Back" mythology springing up instantly and May would be turfed out in ignominy and the Conservative Party might even split.
And she would know that in advance. Regardless of what may or may not be better for the country, she won't voluntarily destroy her own party and Premiership - not when she and they can blame someone else for it.
Once the Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated it won't be reopened. We either leave with that divorce deal (pending negotiation of the future relationship), with no deal or we remain.
A No Deal Brexit would destroy her own party and Premiership. A referendum will be the only way to make the choice between the two viable options that will be on the table.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
What would be the point in asking for an Article 50 extension? If Parliament won't agree any specific deal by March 29th, what would change if an extra 1 months was available? Or 3 months? Or 6 months?
That's the question Parliament would ask before trying to push it through, and the question the EU would ask before granting it. If it were, say, to allow time to put a deal to referendum - sure; there's a point to it. If it's simply because the UK couldn't find a solution for a Deal, there would have to be strong indications of a route to a Deal becoming apparent if an extension were to be granted. In the scenario given, that's not true.
And she would know that in advance. Regardless of what may or may not be better for the country, she won't voluntarily destroy her own party and Premiership - not when she and they can blame someone else for it.
Once the Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated it won't be reopened. We either leave with that divorce deal (pending negotiation of the future relationship), with no deal or we remain.
A No Deal Brexit would destroy her own party and Premiership. A referendum will be the only way to make the choice between the two viable options that will be on the table.
Not if parly signs off a deal.
If the EU suggest pre-vote there will be no further negotiations and no extension then Corbyn and JRM will be the chaps who took us to a no deal.
They want free money and cheap labour? I’m shocked.
It was one of the curious features of the referendum that many car workers and farmers - the two groups who have most to lose from Brexit - voted Leave.
IIRC the farmers at least ensured the Leavers committed themselves to maintaining their EU handouts before they voted for Brexit
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
What would be the point in asking for an Article 50 extension? If Parliament won't agree any specific deal by March 29th, what would change if an extra 1 months was available? Or 3 months? Or 6 months?
That's the question Parliament would ask before trying to push it through, and the question the EU would ask before granting it. If it were, say, to allow time to put a deal to referendum - sure; there's a point to it. If it's simply because the UK couldn't find a solution for a Deal, there would have to be strong indications of a route to a Deal becoming apparent if an extension were to be granted. In the scenario given, that's not true.
And she would know that in advance. Regardless of what may or may not be better for the country, she won't voluntarily destroy her own party and Premiership - not when she and they can blame someone else for it.
Once the Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated it won't be reopened. We either leave with that divorce deal (pending negotiation of the future relationship), with no deal or we remain.
A No Deal Brexit would destroy her own party and Premiership. A referendum will be the only way to make the choice between the two viable options that will be on the table.
Not if parly signs off a deal.
If the EU suggest pre-vote there will be no further negotiations and no extension then Corbyn and JRM will be the chaps who took us to a no deal.
Parly passes. No need for a referendum.
Corbyn and JRM don't have the power to take us to a No Deal. All they can do is dare Theresa May to do it.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
What would be the point in asking for an Article 50 extension? If Parliament won't agree any specific deal by March 29th, what would change if an extra 1 months was available? Or 3 months? Or 6 months?
That's the question Parliament would ask before trying to push it through, and the question the EU would ask before granting it. If it were, say, to allow time to put a deal to referendum - sure; there's a point to it. If it's simply because the UK couldn't find a solution for a Deal, there would have to be strong indications of a route to a Deal becoming apparent if an extension were to be granted. In the scenario given, that's not true.
And she would know that in advance. Regardless of what may or may not be better for the country, she won't voluntarily destroy her own party and Premiership - not when she and they can blame someone else for it.
Once the Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated it won't be reopened. We either leave with that divorce deal (pending negotiation of the future relationship), with no deal or we remain.
A No Deal Brexit would destroy her own party and Premiership. A referendum will be the only way to make the choice between the two viable options that will be on the table.
Not if parly signs off a deal.
If the EU suggest pre-vote there will be no further negotiations and no extension then Corbyn and JRM will be the chaps who took us to a no deal.
Parly passes. No need for a referendum.
Corbyn and JRM don't have the power to take us to a No Deal. All they can do is dare Theresa May to do it.
Correct - the combined might of the BBC, the Guardian etc all pressurising Labour not to vote down a deal the EU agree to. With the alternative being no deal and immediate WTO.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.
And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.
This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.
The consequences are not as direct as people imagine. Voting against the WA merely increases the political crisis but it doesn't automatically mean we leave with no deal, nor does it take the WA off the table.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
Yes. Because socialist utopia would solve all Brexit problems.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
You are probably right that in that scenario there would be an extension, although that consideration is one which itself will discourage the ERG tendency from voting against any possible deal. In any case, an extension doesn't really help resolve things.
Why would the EU offer an extension if there was no real change in the UK's position on the horizon.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
First off, there will be a deal. It is just not feasible for there not to be one.
And secondly, Lab will vote against it as is their duty as HMO. No point in politics if one party says "we have done something for the benefit of our country" and the other party says "yes you're right you have a point" because the former is what every party of Government says about everything all the time.
This is a bit different from most such votes, because it has direct consequences. They can't just oppose for the sake of it whilst hoping (Miliband-style) that the government won't be defeated, and they can't defeat the government and then say that the ensuing chaos was nothing to do with them. What's more, there are still a few Labour MPs who actually care what happens to the country. So I don't think it's clear-cut, especially when you look at who their bedfellows would be.
The consequences are not as direct as people imagine. Voting against the WA merely increases the political crisis but it doesn't automatically mean we leave with no deal, nor does it take the WA off the table.
It would lead to a very unstable situation where the risk of leaving with no deal would be substantial, the chances of a better deal would be zero, and there would be no clear path leading back to Remain. Are Labour really going to put themselves in a situation where they might be responsible for that, and in charge of clearing up the mess? Clearing it up how, exactly?
Yes. Because socialist utopia would solve all Brexit problems.
The recent BMG opinion poll had sone interesting results on whether food, phone, mortgages and a variety of stuff should get price capped. Either the respondents were amusing themselves or.....
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
Great input mate - so glad you're here.
Makes about as much sense as your comment, at least he was probably joking.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
Great input mate - so glad you're here.
Makes about as much sense as your comment, at least he was probably joking.
Look forward to you posting evidence that Hammond is a Conservative...
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
"Non-conservatives"? You really are an idiot!
Gets feisty in here after the school bell.
It was stated with amused incredulity at your stupidity, not anger or "feistiness". The far-right Brexit movement is the mirror image of Momentum, and you just proved it. Only the pure will be allowed into the utopian Kingdom of Brexitland eh?
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
Hardly world-leading. They were asleep on the watch, and managed the extraordinary feat of presiding over the first bank run in the UK in 140 years.
And that's without even considering the background, which was that Brown had dismantled the supervisory structure. leaving literally no-one in charge of ensuring the stability of the banking system, whilst leaving many thousands of box-tickers ticking boxes.
May’s strategy is coming into view. The statement on a future relationship will be a load of waffle. She will tell pro-European MPs that the backstop makes staying in the customs union likely and it’s unlikely we will diverge far from SM regulations. She will tell the ERG that rejecting the deal could lead to no Brexit, and emphasise that we will be out of the CAP, CFP and European citizenship. She will make the same points to the DUP.
The message to both sides will be all bets are off if the deal is rejected. Corbyn in Number 10 is a very high price to pay for the ERG or the DUP. Better a compromise than betting the farm on red.
There is no such thing as an accidental no deal. It can only happen if Theresa May sits in Downing Street on March 29 and decides not to ask for an article 50 extension against the wishes of parliament and the people, or if she decides to ask for it and the EU27 refuse to accept. (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
You are probably right that in that scenario there would be an extension, although that consideration is one which itself will discourage the ERG tendency from voting against any possible deal. In any case, an extension doesn't really help resolve things.
Why would the EU offer an extension if there was no real change in the UK's position on the horizon.
Because the EU's core competence is can kicking?
Others might call it consensus seeking. It is an anathema to those with far-right tendencies who prefer a more authoritarian "The Fuhrer knows what is good for us" approach
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
What next for the arch jester.. . A croaky speech maybe or how about some disparaging comments about diabetics .. That should get him some attention. Poor chap, it's almost tragic.
May’s strategy is coming into view. The statement on a future relationship will be a load of waffle. She will tell pro-European MPs that the backstop makes staying the customs union likely and it’s unlikely we will diverge far from SM regulations. She will tell the ERG that rejecting the deal could lead to no Brexit, and emphasise that we will be out of the CAP, CFP and European citizenship.
The message to both sides will be all bets are off if the deal is rejected. Better a compromise than betting the farm on red.
Yes, I think it will be Blind Brexit too, and a couple more years arguing about what it all means.
And that's without even considering the background, which was that Brown had dismantled the supervisory structure. leaving literally no-one in charge of ensuring the stability of the banking system, whilst leaving many thousands of box-tickers ticking boxes.
Out of interest, at the time were the Conservatives recommending (a) less supervision or (b) more supervision...?
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
Gordon Brown led the international response to the global financial crisis. Sorry but them's the facts.
Hardly world-leading. They were asleep on the watch, and managed the extraordinary feat of presiding over the first bank run in the UK in 140 years.
And that's without even considering the background, which was that Brown had dismantled the supervisory structure. leaving literally no-one in charge of ensuring the stability of the banking system, whilst leaving many thousands of box-tickers ticking boxes.
Also known as too much red tape by Osborne and Cameron.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
Gordon Brown led the international response to the global financial crisis. Sorry but them's the facts.
You should edit the wiki article then - he doesn't get a mention.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
For sure - because we will recoup the cost of saving RBS when it's sold back to the private sector.....
And that's without even considering the background, which was that Brown had dismantled the supervisory structure. leaving literally no-one in charge of ensuring the stability of the banking system, whilst leaving many thousands of box-tickers ticking boxes.
Out of interest, at the time were the Conservatives recommending (a) less supervision or (b) more supervision...?
They were recommending sensible supervision. I've no idea why you on the Left can't get into your heads that quantity isn't the same as quality, but I recommend that you study what Peter Lilley said in parliament in 1997 when Brown was proposing to mess up the existing financial supervision system, which had served so well for 140 years:
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority...it is difficult to see how...the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse. ... The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all. ... the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”
[ Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
Paul Krugman in 2008: Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?
O.K., the question is premature — we still don’t know the exact shape of the planned financial rescues in Europe or for that matter the United States, let alone whether they’ll really work. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Brown and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury secretary), have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
snip
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
Gordon Brown led the international response to the global financial crisis. Sorry but them's the facts.
How many times: the ATMs were literally a couple of hours from being switched off.
If you want to see civil unrest, try turning off the cash machines as people are heading out of work and to the pub and dinner.
Paul Krugman in 2008: Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?
O.K., the question is premature — we still don’t know the exact shape of the planned financial rescues in Europe or for that matter the United States, let alone whether they’ll really work. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Brown and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury secretary), have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html
Paul Krugman in 2008: Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?
O.K., the question is premature — we still don’t know the exact shape of the planned financial rescues in Europe or for that matter the United States, let alone whether they’ll really work. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Brown and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury secretary), have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html
To be fair, after the initial disastrous response to Northern Rock and Brown's ill-fated intervention in HBOS, Darling did eventually do quite well with the rescue of RBS and Lloyds. But then, Darling is a lot brighter and more sensible than Brown.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
snip
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
Gordon Brown led the international response to the global financial crisis. Sorry but them's the facts.
How many times: the ATMs were literally a couple of hours from being switched off.
If you want to see civil unrest, try turning off the cash machines as people are heading out of work and to the pub and dinner.
You may have missed the recent bank IT failures that stopped people getting their cash out -- to be fair, it was last month.
May’s strategy is coming into view. The statement on a future relationship will be a load of waffle. She will tell pro-European MPs that the backstop makes staying the customs union likely and it’s unlikely we will diverge far from SM regulations. She will tell the ERG that rejecting the deal could lead to no Brexit, and emphasise that we will be out of the CAP, CFP and European citizenship.
The message to both sides will be all bets are off if the deal is rejected. Better a compromise than betting the farm on red.
Yes, I think it will be Blind Brexit too, and a couple more years arguing about what it all means.
Even more of the public will lose interest once 29th March is past. Continuity Remain will dissipate, and the final deal will be agreed by the next Tory leader.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
This should be seen in the context of his prediction that the UK would not agree to talk about withdrawal until the EU agreed to talk about the future relationship. And that after the referendum the PM would be straight on the plane to Berlin to do a deal. Davis has an Anglocentric view of the world which has been out of tune with reality since about 1914.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
Hmm, I don't think it's as simple as that. If we assume that she comes back with a deal (admittedly a big 'if'), then there will massive relief from business, the pound will rise and the airwaves will be full of pundits saying that this avoids disaster. If Labour then ally themselves with the extremists in Tory ranks to throw the deal in the bin, they run a massive risk of getting the blame for the disaster, since the alternatives probably don't actually work.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
Great input mate - so glad you're here.
Makes about as much sense as your comment, at least he was probably joking.
Look forward to you posting evidence that Hammond is a Conservative...
You might have some sort of point if you are arguing that Hammond amongst others don't meet your criteria for a small "c" conservative. Claiming that Hammond and Davidson don't belong in the Conservative Party is something else entirely.
DD just comes across as a bitter and broken man, crushed by the realization that no one will ever take him seriously again. At least Boris, prancing through that corn field in his pyjama bottoms, looks merry, albeit a little nuts. The Leavers need to anoint another leader though - the currently batch are trending towards the non-serious.
This plan would pass the HoC with Labour votes though?
Very unlikely. If May can't get a deal through her own party do we seriously suggest that she is going to go down on her knees and beg Corbyn (or Umunna for that matter) to save her.
Virtually no one in Labour wants May to get a deal. The leadership don't want her to beccuae they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a general election. The remainers don't want her to because they hope to use the threat of no deal to force a new referendum. And the few caught in the middle (Flint, Snell etc) would have to face down the hostility of their overwhelming pro-remain constituency parties and colleagues.
May will not get more than a small handful of Labour MPs to back her, whatever she does.
There is no way all of Labour are going to vote with JRM in favour of no deal.
But the vote will be for or against Mays deal ( if there is one). Labour will vote against. They will then say that May should go and let Labour negotiate a better deal, if necessary by extending A50 as Thronberry said last week.
If we end up with No Deal because of Corbyn - I think that will be the end of him. It's the exact opposite of what the Labour membership and the parliamentary party want.
their handling of it has been catastrophic - by far the biggest political disaster in the modern era.
Yeah - frothing in latte shops over Brexit is much worse than faking a crisis to start the Iraq war and the awful response to the crash of 2008.
World-leading (literally) response to 2008.
Only if your world is the Brown and Darling households.
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
Which shareholders got a return?
RBS.
Eh? I was a shareholder, unfortunately, and I was all but wiped out.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way - it was my mistake for not bailing out when the ABN Amro deal went through, an obvious over-reach even at the time - but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
This should be seen in the context of his prediction that the UK would not agree to talk about withdrawal until the EU agreed to talk about the future relationship. And that after the referendum the PM would be straight on the plane to Berlin to do a deal. Davis has an Anglocentric view of the world which has been out of tune with reality since about 1914.
haha, great post. An "Anglocentric view of the world which has been out of tune with reality since about 1914" pretty much sums up most of the Leave movement from it's mendacious leadership to its most casual supporter.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
Eh? You seem completely confused. It wasn't the shareholders who were bailed out, it was the bank's customers, and anyone who had any financial relationship with the bank's customers, which is broadly speaking every business and every individual in the country.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
Great input mate - so glad you're here.
Makes about as much sense as your comment, at least he was probably joking.
Look forward to you posting evidence that Hammond is a Conservative...
You might have some sort of point if you are arguing that Hammond amongst others don't meet your criteria for a small "c" conservative. Claiming that Hammond and Davidson don't belong in the Conservative Party is something else entirely.
Sadly, some people who claim to be Conservatives are really more interested in small f fascism
The biggest danger for the Tories is that voters may decide that although they don't really like Corbyn and McDonnell they "might as well give them a chance" for one term just to see whether they can do anything about the things the Tories have manifestly failed to improve over the last few years like the housing crisis for example.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
Eh? You seem completely confused. It wasn't the shareholders who were bailed out, it was the bank's customers, and anyone who had any financial relationship with the bank's customers, which is broadly speaking every business and every individual in the country.
You still had shares you could sell. That's a bail out.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
Eh? You seem completely confused. It wasn't the shareholders who were bailed out, it was the bank's customers, and anyone who had any financial relationship with the bank's customers, which is broadly speaking every business and every individual in the country.
Indeed Mr Nabavi, I was no fan of Brown, but without the action that he and Darling took my business would have almost certainly had all accounts frozen with hideous consequences. It was a very frightening time for any business owner
You still had shares you could sell. That's a bail out.
For its own reasons the government left shareholders with a little short of a complete wipe out, but so what? That's not bailing shareholders out, no public money went to shareholders. Their reasoning was that the shares they were acquiring would be worth more on eventual resale if they didn't take quite 100%. Of course we'll never know whether that was right, but it wasn't obviously wrong.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
Eh? You seem completely confused. It wasn't the shareholders who were bailed out, it was the bank's customers, and anyone who had any financial relationship with the bank's customers, which is broadly speaking every business and every individual in the country.
Indeed Mr Nabavi, I was no fan of Brown, but without the action that he and Darling took my business would have almost certainly had all accounts frozen with hideous consequences. It was a very frightening time for any business owner
It's worrying how little understanding there is of this. Many people seem to think that without the bail-out the cash machines and credit cards would have continued to operate, and their salaries would have continued to be paid, and their employers would have been unaffected. The ignorance is astonishing.
Of course no government could ever have left RBS and Lloyds to go bust. It's completely unthinkable.
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
Eh? You seem completely confused. It wasn't the shareholders who were bailed out, it was the bank's customers, and anyone who had any financial relationship with the bank's customers, which is broadly speaking every business and every individual in the country.
You still had shares you could sell. That's a bail out.
Well, that's not true of Northern Rock or Bradford & Bingley. It is true of RBS, where you *only* lost 95% of your money.
But here's the question for you: would the cost of rescuing RBS have been more or less if they had waited until it had gone completely bust?
Eh? I was a shareholder in RBS, unfortunately, and I was all but wiped out.
Only someone without RBS shares could claim that. I had about £10k of RBS shares and I doubt if my remaining shareholding is worth even 5% of that now.....
You got more than NRK shareholders got. Given the bank was bust you were lucky to get anything.
True, but the difference between a 100% loss and the 95% or so loss I actually incurred is hardly anything to get excited about. I'm not complaining either way, but the suggestion that shareholders somehow didn't take the loss is bonkers.
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
Eh? You seem completely confused. It wasn't the shareholders who were bailed out, it was the bank's customers, and anyone who had any financial relationship with the bank's customers, which is broadly speaking every business and every individual in the country.
Indeed Mr Nabavi, I was no fan of Brown, but without the action that he and Darling took my business would have almost certainly had all accounts frozen with hideous consequences. It was a very frightening time for any business owner
It's worrying how little understanding there is of this. Many people seem to think that without the bail-out the cash machines and credit cards would have continued to operate, and their salaries would have continued to be paid, and their employers would have been unaffected. The ignorance is astonishing.
Of course no government could ever have left RBS and Lloyds to go bust. It's completely unthinkable.
It is thinkable for some in the same way as No Deal Brexit is also their idea of utopia
And that's without even considering the background, which was that Brown had dismantled the supervisory structure. leaving literally no-one in charge of ensuring the stability of the banking system, whilst leaving many thousands of box-tickers ticking boxes.
Out of interest, at the time were the Conservatives recommending (a) less supervision or (b) more supervision...?
They were recommending sensible supervision. I've no idea why you on the Left can't get into your heads that quantity isn't the same as quality, but I recommend that you study what Peter Lilley said in parliament in 1997 when Brown was proposing to mess up the existing financial supervision system, which had served so well for 140 years:
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority...it is difficult to see how...the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse. ... The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all. ... the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”
[ Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
And that was the last we ever heard of it from the Tories. Nothing in any manifesto, no big campaigns, no major speeches, nothing. If they felt it was something that needed dealing with they kept very, very quiet about it.
Labour’s mass complaint to the press regulator Ipso over this summer’s press coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s visit to a Tunisian cemetery in 2014 has been dropped, according to individuals at the newspapers involved.
I get the impression that the conference delegates are failing to live up to their billing as extreme Brexiteers, with both Phil Hammond and Ruth Davidson getting a good reception.
When non-Conservatives go down well then perhaps they are in severe trouble.
Ah, the true conservative test. Presumably you sniff their pants and if there’s a stench of bigotry and boarding school buggery it passes your test.
Great input mate - so glad you're here.
Makes about as much sense as your comment, at least he was probably joking.
Look forward to you posting evidence that Hammond is a Conservative...
You might have some sort of point if you are arguing that Hammond amongst others don't meet your criteria for a small "c" conservative. Claiming that Hammond and Davidson don't belong in the Conservative Party is something else entirely.
Sadly, some people who claim to be Conservatives are really more interested in small f fascism
This Trumpite, hard-right, Loyalist poster being a prime example.
Comments
There will be a million ways that Lab will say that it is all the Cons fault.
You or I may be alive to the nuances of the situation, but Lab is more concerned with getting into power. Conversely, I think that nationalising the utilities, amongst other Corbyn policies would bring about chaos. I don't think that they wouldn't be entitled to enact those policies.
The EU is currently opposed to allowing this, and wants only Northern Ireland to remain inside its customs territory after Brexit. That will need to change if there is to be a deal, the official said."
Has anyone told the EU that they're supposed to be trying to treat us as a sort of vassal state and keep us in that Customs Union? Because it feels like we're a cat who insists they want to go out and scratches at the door, sees it's rainy outside, and is being nudged outside by a large foot whilst yowling "stop trying to make me stay indoors!"
I think Labour's plan to get into power off the back of this is unlikely to work, but that's another matter.
She won't get a deal through parliament.
There is not a majority for any deal in Parliament.
Has something changed?
Anna Soubry said today she would find it difficult to vote down
However, Boris would still be the biggest dope in the field.
That's the question Parliament would ask before trying to push it through, and the question the EU would ask before granting it. If it were, say, to allow time to put a deal to referendum - sure; there's a point to it. If it's simply because the UK couldn't find a solution for a Deal, there would have to be strong indications of a route to a Deal becoming apparent if an extension were to be granted. In the scenario given, that's not true.
" (In practice we'd concede to whatever conditions necessary.)"
No. She wouldn't. It would be political suicide for the Conservatives: regardless of how devastating a No Deal crashout Brexit would be, if it were to be averted at the last moment by total surrender, a huge proportion of Leavers and Conservatives would believe it wouldn't have been that bad. There would be a "Stab in the Back" mythology springing up instantly and May would be turfed out in ignominy and the Conservative Party might even split.
And she would know that in advance. Regardless of what may or may not be better for the country, she won't voluntarily destroy her own party and Premiership - not when she and they can blame someone else for it.
That would pass, but won't be offered by the Tories.
A No Deal Brexit would destroy her own party and Premiership. A referendum will be the only way to make the choice between the two viable options that will be on the table.
If the EU suggest pre-vote there will be no further negotiations and no extension then Corbyn and JRM will be the chaps who took us to a no deal.
Parly passes. No need for a referendum.
Under those circumstances Corbyn will crumble.
He runs Liam "Sleazebag" Fox close as the most odious person in British politics!
Lay him for next Tory leader - free money!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/02/day-credit-crunch-began-10-years-on-world-changed
Hardly world-leading. They were asleep on the watch, and managed the extraordinary feat of presiding over the first bank run in the UK in 140 years.
And that's without even considering the background, which was that Brown had dismantled the supervisory structure. leaving literally no-one in charge of ensuring the stability of the banking system, whilst leaving many thousands of box-tickers ticking boxes.
The message to both sides will be all bets are off if the deal is rejected. Corbyn in Number 10 is a very high price to pay for the ERG or the DUP. Better a compromise than betting the farm on red.
Others might call it consensus seeking. It is an anathema to those with far-right tendencies who prefer a more authoritarian "The Fuhrer knows what is good for us" approach
Injecting $37Bn of our money into banks and shareholders still got a return ?
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1046788111152414720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority...it is difficult to see how...the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.
...
The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all.
...
the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”
[ Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
O.K., the question is premature — we still don’t know the exact shape of the planned financial rescues in Europe or for that matter the United States, let alone whether they’ll really work. What we do know, however, is that Mr. Brown and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury secretary), have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html
If you want to see civil unrest, try turning off the cash machines as people are heading out of work and to the pub and dinner.
https://twitter.com/AliBunkallSKY/status/1046699225818509312
May did this as a kid.
He's a grown man.
Bet well.
@EuropeElects
Germany, INSA poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 26% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 18.5% (+0.5)
SPD-S&D: 16%
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 14.5%
LINKE-LEFT: 11.5%
FDP-ALDE: 10%
Field work: 28/09/18 – 1/10/18
Sample size: 2,041"
polls showing SPD in decliene and AfD and Greens battling it out for second place
Polls also show Germans increasingly want Merkel to go
Nobody suggested they didn't take a loss - they were bailed out by Gordon Brown with taxpayer funds.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/10/our-next-tory-leader-survey-javid-is-up-and-johnson-down-slightly-but-the-latter-retains-a-double-figure-lead.html
Plus plenty of polls showed voters thought Corbyn would be a poor leader before he won the Labour leadership and before GE17
Of course no government could ever have left RBS and Lloyds to go bust. It's completely unthinkable.
But here's the question for you: would the cost of rescuing RBS have been more or less if they had waited until it had gone completely bust?
Being a good administrator is not necessarily the same as being a good election campaigner
More falling letters meme:
Labour’s mass complaint to the press regulator Ipso over this summer’s press coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s visit to a Tunisian cemetery in 2014 has been dropped, according to individuals at the newspapers involved.
Well there's a surprise.