To answer our Australian poster’s insistent query, I have very little interest in the form of Brexit. It has to curb immigration and provide more money to the NHS because that is what Leave sought a mandate for. Beyond that I would prefer something stable that gives the country time to lick the deep wounds that have been unnecessarily inflicted by the crazed Leave zealots. Since that isn’t possible in practice, it’s all a rather niche question.
It does not matter what type of Brexit you want or Archer wants it matters what type of Brexit the voters want.
According to ICM in order of favourability the type of Brexit voters want is
1. Ooh I like that nice young chap that’s PM 2. Mountains are pretty 3. Board games are good when it rains 4. Eff you, you stinking, stupid Leave voters 5. Can’t be good. Any sensible person can do a deal surely?
What HYUFD failed to mention is that on an AV basis the last three were Canada 48%; SM+CU 29%; No Deal 23%.
No Deal was eliminated producing 65% for Canada. But if Canada was not available, it seems pretty likely looking at these numbers that No Deal would end up the leader.
No, it would not as the choice would then be Customs Union/Norway v No Deal and as the main ICM figures show Norway is on +7% net favourability, No Deal -33%. So Norway/Customs Union would easily beat No Deal head to head, even if it was closer than Canada v No Deal
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
EEA+CU even you have said is Barnier's backstop, so yet again your fanaticism ignores reality
Yes, but it would have to be permanent. Since EEA+CU would not be permanent, he would have no backstop. It is really no different than the transition period - at the end there would be no solution. So he will insist on the backstop in case the UK leaves the EEA+CU, which given this is the whole point of the plan is obviously likely.
If No Deal is the alternative it will be permanent
OK I can't help you if you cannot be rational. Nonetheless, EEA+CU will not be available without the backstop.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
Absolutely they wouldn't be. And Tory Head Office has the power to ensure they won't, whatever their own Association might want.
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
EEA+CU even you have said is Barnier's backstop, so yet again your fanaticism ignores reality
Yes, but it would have to be permanent. Since EEA+CU would not be permanent, he would have no backstop. It is really no different than the transition period - at the end there would be no solution. So he will insist on the backstop in case the UK leaves the EEA+CU, which given this is the whole point of the plan is obviously likely.
If No Deal is the alternative it will be permanent
OK I can't help you if you cannot be rational. Nonetheless, EEA+CU will not be available without the backstop.
Even you have said CU + EEA for NI is what Barnier wants as the NI backstop, if No Deal was the alternative that would end up just being applied to the whole UK
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament onomy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
They would not care about that, their main objective to achieve either SM+CU Brexit or EUref2 would have been achieved if as is likely Corbyn became PM but reliant on the SNP and LDs and moderate Labour MPs to get any legislation through and thus forced towards soft Brexit or EUref2
I do find the incessant to-ing and fro-ing over various options and what some unnamed Cabinet Minister may or may not have said or threatened very tiresome. And pointless.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
It is not an unreasonable solution. But the referendum would just become a Unionist v Nationalist matter as the Unionists see any such arrangement as undermining the Union. It will not be a very friendly affair and I can see one side or the other boycotting in protest.
So, if we are actually interested in not causing sectarian discord, it would not seem very sensible to do the one thing that is most likely to cause trouble. And probably suggests why it has been completely inappropriate for the EU to go down this road in the first place.
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
Wise words in the first part of your post Big_G.
Re Saudi, much trickier issue. It seems to me we have for years sucked up to an truly odious regime because, and only because, they have a lot of money. Clearly risk 'cutting off our noses' to some extent but we really need to find better methods of making our way in the world than selling weapons to nasty, illiberal, undemocratic regimes imo.
Hard to believe those two useless attention seeking halfwits, who would miss them an invisible MSP and a numpty MP, both nobodies promoted well above their competence level. PS: AS she said, given their total lack of principles they will not be resigning any time soon, unfortunately.
You do have a way with words. Quite looking forward to being the target myself sometime...;)
I do find the incessant to-ing and fro-ing over various options and what some unnamed Cabinet Minister may or may not have said or threatened very tiresome. And pointless.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
I agree with cyclefree. Now this Brexit stuff is all sorted, we can get back to discussing other important issues.
The penny must has dropped on everyone by now, the deals been done. We are leaving but staying in CU. At least 60% of voters will endorse this in next March’s “do you accept this fudge yes or no” ref sealing this deal for next thirty years. Canada, Norway, people’s vote, Remain, no deal, hard Brexit, that’s all in the past now. Gone. Leave it alone. Put down your weary tune. You’re boring us with your counterfactuals.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament onomy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
They would not care about that, their main objective to achieve either SM+CU Brexit or EUref2 would have been achieved if as is likely Corbyn became PM but reliant on the SNP and LDs and moderate Labour MPs to get any legislation through and thus forced towards soft Brexit or EUref2
They would likely still stand as Independent Conservatives anyway
I do find the incessant to-ing and fro-ing over various options and what some unnamed Cabinet Minister may or may not have said or threatened very tiresome. And pointless.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
I agree with cyclefree. Now this Brexit stuff is all sorted, we can get back to discussing other important issues.
The penny must has dropped on everyone by now, the deals been done. We are leaving but staying in CU. At least 60% of voters will endorse this in next March’s “do you accept this fudge yes or no” ref sealing this deal for next thirty years. Canada, Norway, people’s vote, Remain, no deal, hard Brexit, that’s all in the past now. Gone. Leave it alone. Put down your weary tune. You’re boring us with your counterfactuals.
Well we certainly wouldn't want facts to interfere with your certainty. But I might just archive this post for future reference...
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament onomy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
They would not care about that, their main objective to achieve either SM+CU Brexit or EUref2 would have been achieved if as is likely Corbyn became PM but reliant on the SNP and LDs and moderate Labour MPs to get any legislation through and thus forced towards soft Brexit or EUref2
They would likely still stand as Independent Conservatives anyway
No they wouldn’t - the electoral commission wouldn’t allow it. Independent would be as good as it gets.
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament onomy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
They would not care about that, their main objective to achieve either SM+CU Brexit or EUref2 would have been achieved if as is likely Corbyn became PM but reliant on the SNP and LDs and moderate Labour MPs to get any legislation through and thus forced towards soft Brexit or EUref2
They would likely still stand as Independent Conservatives anyway
No they wouldn’t - the electoral commission wouldn’t allow it.
Why not; they’re making it clear that they are not 'official’ Conservatives. Not like being a ‘Literal’ Democrat!
May will have called a general election a month or two after November if she fails to get a mandate for her deal, that new Parliament will then either give her a mandate for her deal or will see Corbyn as PM. If Corbyn is PM and cannot swiftly agree a new majority the new Labour + SNP majority as their conferences made clear would vote for EUref2 with the LDs which Remain would win rather than No Deal Brexit.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament onomy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
They would not care about that, their main objective to achieve either SM+CU Brexit or EUref2 would have been achieved if as is likely Corbyn became PM but reliant on the SNP and LDs and moderate Labour MPs to get any legislation through and thus forced towards soft Brexit or EUref2
They would likely still stand as Independent Conservatives anyway
No they wouldn’t - the electoral commission wouldn’t allow it.
Why not; they’re making it clear that they are not 'official’ Conservatives. Not like being a ‘Literal’ Democrat!
The week when the vast amounts of Brexit shit that has been backing up inside Theresa May is about to explode out of her and hit the rapidly rotating Euro-fan.
Absolutely *everyone* is about to get covered in it.
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
Brexit threatens the integrity of the UK. Already sentiment in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland has gone from very small to nearly half and within striking distance of winning a border poll. The NI backstop as as guarantee of a soft border is supported by the majority of Northern Irish. The DUP are in a minority. The DUP IMO made a catastrophic mistake from their interest by going all in on Brexit. The status quo is their friend. I guess they found the prospect of a hard land border too appealing to pass up.
There has always been a decent 'Union with the RoI’ vote. Demographics were always going to suggest it could rise, too.
I disagree with this. Support for Union with RoI was just 13% in 2015 and 42% in 2018. Brexit is what changed things, not demographics. Most Catholics accepted UK rule in NI because they felt protected by the GFA. Now most want out, as do a large proportion of the non aligned
Barnier will not accept EEA+CU without a backstop either. Otherwise we can just leave the EEA later. We have no ability to join the EEA without Barnier's consent. So another plot to derail Brexit falls apart.
EEA+CU even you have said is Barnier's backstop, so yet again your fanaticism ignores reality
Yes, but it would have to be permanent. Since EEA+CU would not be permanent, he would have no backstop. It is really no different than the transition period - at the end there would be no solution. So he will insist on the backstop in case the UK leaves the EEA+CU, which given this is the whole point of the plan is obviously likely.
If No Deal is the alternative it will be permanent
I think one of the things that it has taken the British government until shockingly late in the game to realise, is that permanence is defined and dictated by the EU.
No I think a deal has been done and this is all about political choreography now.
It is possible, but it is quite a conspiracy theory and would require an awful lot of people to play a part. Raab, for example. It also requires a massive amount of competence which frankly has not previously been evidence. Overall I doubt very much it is true.
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
Wise words in the first part of your post Big_G.
Re Saudi, much trickier issue. It seems to me we have for years sucked up to an truly odious regime because, and only because, they have a lot of money. Clearly risk 'cutting off our noses' to some extent but we really need to find better methods of making our way in the world than selling weapons to nasty, illiberal, undemocratic regimes imo.
Yes, our sucking up to the Saudis, via shady and lucrative arms deals, is behind us turning a blind eye to their pushing their Wahabbist extreme strand of Islam worldwide. We have already had some blowback, but will get more now that the Saudis control the madrassas across the world.
In the future it will be seen in much the same terms as the appeasement of the Nazis.
The week when the vast amounts of Brexit shit that has been backing up inside Theresa May is about to explode out of her and hit the rapidly rotating Euro-fan.
Absolutely *everyone* is about to get covered in it.
The week when the vast amounts of Brexit shit that has been backing up inside Theresa May is about to explode out of her and hit the rapidly rotating Euro-fan.
Absolutely *everyone* is about to get covered in it.
What a delightful image! But I cannot disagree with this.
Vassal State is the only option that satisfies all three red lines. I will resign unless I get to be a vassal sounds odd, but we live in strange times.
Being outside the U.K. certainly helps with perspective. What an utter shambles our Westminster politico-media class have made of the governance of our country. That study about public sector assets and liabilities earlier in the week was telling; Britain is in the worst position of any large European country.
Due to travel I’ll be off PB from today until Saturday. I think this will turn out to be a blessing.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If we accept as a possibility that such may be the only way for May to even possibly get a deal agreed, then I would agree an announcement like that may well come as soon as the crucial details are agreed with teh EU.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
Absolutely they wouldn't be. And Tory Head Office has the power to ensure they won't, whatever their own Association might want.
Well when you are in an organisation that brings you a lot of benefits you need to be very careful about leaving it.
You fail to realise it is not Remainers who are dicing with Death it is diehard Brexiteers, if you fail to get any sort of Deal through in November then Brexit may well not happen at all.
The idea the likes of Soubry and Wollaston and Rudd and Grieve and Ken Clarke etc will vote for a Davis coronation and No Deal Brexit is laughable, if has no proposals to agree the backstop they will vote with Labour for a general election or EUref2 rather than No Deal
Nobody has to vote for No Deal.
The only way there will be a GE is if the DUP no confidence the Government. Which is looking more likely than any of your fantasies.
We are not talking about diehard Brexit. We are talking about a Conservative and Unionist Party PM trying to undermine the Union. Even Ruth Davidson is threatening to resign if she does this.
I notice you still have not answered the question as to whether you agree with this....much easier to just avoid the point I suppose.
Oh they do, Parliament has to accept it, which they will not.
If Tory Remainers like Rudd and Soubry and Wollaston and Clarke vote to no confidence the Government over No Deal, which is likely, there would be a GE regardless of what the DUP does.
We are talking actually about fanatics like you prepared to do anything in your desire for a No Deal Brexit, something we know Ruth Davidson is absolutely opposed to as the biggest beneficiary would be Nicola Sturgeon and Sinn Fein and the biggest loser the Union and the British economy
I cannot see any Tory MPs supporting a No Confidence motion.
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
If they forced a general election, they would not be Tory candidates at that election.
Absolutely they wouldn't be. And Tory Head Office has the power to ensure they won't, whatever their own Association might want.
Well when you are in an organisation that brings you a lot of benefits you need to be very careful about leaving it.
Vassal State is the only option that satisfies all three red lines. I will resign unless I get to be a vassal sounds odd, but we live in strange times.
No deal also achieves these outcomes. As would CETA with the EU climbing down on the backstop.
I flew into Boston last night for a business trip. I got upograded to First Class, which was rather nice; but even better was that I was in my hotel room on Harvard Square less than an hour after landing. It was quicker out of the airport than I have ever known anywhere, especially the US. Truly amazing. Now, back to Brexit ...
That presupposes there will ever be a solution to the NI border that the EU would accept. That seems unlikely given the history of the negotiations, and that is assuming the EU don’t then kick off on Spain/Gibraltar.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If we accept as a possibility that such may be the only way for May to even possibly get a deal agreed, then I would agree an announcement like that may well come as soon as the crucial details are agreed with teh EU.
May does not have the ability to 'just call' a referendum. I doubt the Cabinet would support this and she would have to get a bill through Parliament without a majority. Not thinking this is likely.
It’s Mundells job to stand up for the U.K. and Davidson’s to represent Scotland within the U.K. It’s not their job to promote Scottish Indpendence.
The UK government appears to disagree with you on the former.
' The UK government's website lists the Secretary of State for Scotland's responsibilities as being:
"The main role of the Scottish Secretary is to promote and protect the devolution settlement. Other responsibilities include promoting partnership between the UK government and the Scottish government, and relations between the 2 Parliaments."'
I do find the incessant to-ing and fro-ing over various options and what some unnamed Cabinet Minister may or may not have said or threatened very tiresome. And pointless.
Isn't the reality that the EU will come up with a proposed withdrawal deal and present it to us on a take it or leave it basis? And if we leave it, it will be No Deal (which has been my working assumption for some time now) for which we are woefully unprepared.
On NI, maybe I am being simplistic but bear me out. If the proposal is that NI is in a different regulatory regime to deal with the hard border issue, might one solution to this be a NI referendum on whether they are happy with this? If they are then this neatly resolves the consent issue under the GFA as well. We are assuming that the DUP position represents the views of all in NI which may well be mistaken.
Or am I missing something?
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
Why not deal (if agreed) or no deal as an option as we have already voted to leave? I would think that is an option the Tory party and MPs would be more likely to endorse rather than remain options?
And that perhaps is also the issue with a peoples vote or second referendum - if parliament cannot agree on a deal who says parliament will agree the question to be asked (as it will need legislation), what if the Lords objects and what is the mandate (i.e. the Tories won the 2015 election and had this as a manifesto commitment). Its not obvious there is a consensus on the questions - would we have 3 options and use an electoral system we rejected in a referendum in 2011 to overtturn a referendum we held in 2016?
What of course do all of the options mean in the medium to long term - are we any clearer than 26 months ago? And who can predict how voters may react and how opinions can change - we perhaps forget that in July 2015 one poll had remain ahead by 44% - as we saw in last year's election things can move quite dramatically quite quickly.
Being outside the U.K. certainly helps with perspective. What an utter shambles our Westminster politico-media class have made of the governance of our country. That study about public sector assets and liabilities earlier in the week was telling; Britain is in the worst position of any large European country.
Due to travel I’ll be off PB from today until Saturday. I think this will turn out to be a blessing.
Safe journeying. And profitable, if it’s business.
Vassal State is the only option that satisfies all three red lines. I will resign unless I get to be a vassal sounds odd, but we live in strange times.
Think of it another way: "I will resign unless the Brexit option on the ballot paper is unpalatable."
Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke absolutely would if May was toppled in a hardline Brexiteer coup or hardline Brexiteers attempted to force through No Deal, for them country would come before party at that point, they are all fanatically anti hard Brexit and if they cannot force an EU referendum they would force a general election
So be it. They wouldn't be standing for the Tories in that General Election if they did that.
The question is whether Soubry, Wollaston, Rudd, Clarke etc wish to stand in another general election anyway. If they don't, they are dangerous. That would certainly apply to Clarke given that retirement must be looming for him. As for the rest, the question they have to ask themselves is whether they could win their seats as LD defectors. Of those HYUFD listed, Wollaston would have a fair chance in a rural Devon seat, but odds are strongly against the other two.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If we accept as a possibility that such may be the only way for May to even possibly get a deal agreed, then I would agree an announcement like that may well come as soon as the crucial details are agreed with teh EU.
May does not have the ability to 'just call' a referendum. I doubt the Cabinet would support this and she would have to get a bill through Parliament without a majority. Not thinking this is likely.
Who said she could 'just call' one? I think we can be generous enough that when people talk about 'calling' GEs or referenda they are talking about going through the legal motions necessary. In this case May could announce her intention to ask for one. Certainly getting it through would be far from guaranteed, but if parliament really is virulently against no deal as is often alleged, and yet no deal can get through the Commons either, then is is slightly more conceivable that a referendum with all options could get through, if enough continuity remainers and no deal leavers can be persuaded to back it on the grounds that they are always banging on about how their path is so bloody popular.
We currently have a form of Schroedingers Brexit where some including the PM are petrified that no deal means disaster. While many including myself believe Britain will cope just fine with no deal though we would prefer a good deal. Currently the EU believe they hold the whip hand as they believe (as do many here including the PM that any deal is better than no deal).
In the event of no deal though all that changes. The box is opened and either no deal is a disaster and we are desperate for a deal. Which leaves us in relatively the same position negotiating wise as we are now. Or Brexit is a success and we realise we can be fine without a deal but a good deal would still be nice to have. In which case we would negotiate as equals not supplicants.
Vassal State is the only option that satisfies all three red lines. I will resign unless I get to be a vassal sounds odd, but we live in strange times.
If you believe the SNP the Scots have been living in a vassal state since 1706 - Scotland! So nothing new north of the border.
It is a serious matter though - should the EU be allowed to dictate a non member's trade policies forever? Because that is what we face without a timelimit and our right to leave the CU - or NI solves the issue and joins the Republic. I can't see why anyone would see that as desirable - we could leave the EU but never leave the CU?
I am surprised no one has described this as the Turkey option because as far as I am aware its the only sizeable nation not in the single market, not in the EU but in customs union with the EU? Vote for the Turkey!
If one part of the UK was in the CU and another not, isn’t that entirely the kind of classic British fudge that we used to be able to play to our advantage. Isn’t it potentially beneficial being able to straddle two worlds, picking and choosing which one to play in on a case by case basis?
Not if it threatens the integrity of the UK. Which it would.
Brexit threatens the integrity of the UK. Already sentiment in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland has gone from very small to nearly half and within striking distance of winning a border poll. The NI backstop as as guarantee of a soft border is supported by the majority of Northern Irish. The DUP are in a minority. The DUP IMO made a catastrophic mistake from their interest by going all in on Brexit. The status quo is their friend. I guess they found the prospect of a hard land border too appealing to pass up.
There has always been a decent 'Union with the RoI’ vote. Demographics were always going to suggest it could rise, too.
I disagree with this. Support for Union with RoI was just 13% in 2015 and 42% in 2018. Brexit is what changed things, not demographics. Most Catholics accepted UK rule in NI because they felt protected by the GFA. Now most want out, as do a large proportion of the non aligned
What do you base the 15% on? And, wasn’t that when the Republic was going though all sorts? I think it was higher in times pas, but of course I could be wrong!. Wikipedia’s reports are all over the place!
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If so, May well prefer to announce it before rather than after the #peoplesvote rally next Saturday. She would look rather weak if announcing it the day after. Better to steal its thunder.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If so, May well prefer to announce it before rather than after the #peoplesvote rally next Saturday. She would look rather weak if announcing it the day after. Better to steal its thunder.
I think I'll go on that march. It will be good to take part in the great events of the age.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If so, May well prefer to announce it before rather than after the #peoplesvote rally next Saturday. She would look rather weak if announcing it the day after. Better to steal its thunder.
Exactly, and then the rally becomes all about forcing MPs to vote it through.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If so, May well prefer to announce it before rather than after the #peoplesvote rally next Saturday. She would look rather weak if announcing it the day after. Better to steal its thunder.
She would also look absurd if the rally is a damp squib again and then she goes for it.
A lazy sunday morning and catching up on the thread I see in TM words 'nothing has changed'
Entrenched posters trying to change views to each other's cause, shouting, demanding other posters respond, passing views that are so definitive they are absurd in this climate.
My own view is I do not know TM's position. I am not privvy to the detail as is the case with everyone here, and I am not going to argue backwards and forwards when the sanest option is to wait for the detail from the Council meetings in the next few weeks.
On Saudi Arabia, if they have killed this journalist they need sanctions and co-ordinated world wide response.
However, Emily Thornberry's predicable response is to cancel all arm sales. When Marr pointed out that was a 60 billion contact and would lay waste to factories, workers and communities, mainly in Lancashire she muttered something to the effect that they would understand.
Even Trump who has lashed out at Saudi Arabia has said he will not curtail arm sales so labour would hand 60 billion of defence contracts to the US and France with no thought how they would ever recover these contracts or protect the communities who lose this work, especially in Lancashire.
Also compare and contrast labour's response to Saudi Arabia and Russia who actually used nerve agent on our soil killing an innocent woman
Wise words in the first part of your post Big_G.
Re Saudi, much trickier issue. It seems to me we have for years sucked up to an truly odious regime because, and only because, they have a lot of money. Clearly risk 'cutting off our noses' to some extent but we really need to find better methods of making our way in the world than selling weapons to nasty, illiberal, undemocratic regimes imo.
Yes, our sucking up to the Saudis, via shady and lucrative arms deals, is behind us turning a blind eye to their pushing their Wahabbist extreme strand of Islam worldwide. We have already had some blowback, but will get more now that the Saudis control the madrassas across the world.
In the future it will be seen in much the same terms as the appeasement of the Nazis.
I don't know about that, but it seems crazy to me that we are happy to sell arms to a state which sponsors terrorism.
I’m beginning to think the big second referendum announcement could be this week.
If so, May well prefer to announce it before rather than after the #peoplesvote rally next Saturday. She would look rather weak if announcing it the day after. Better to steal its thunder.
What is the question which would be asked - would she get a consensus on that among her own MPs let alone the Commons and Lords and perhaps also the electoral commission?
Cos the people's vote campaign has only been very vague about having a 'vote on the deal'. But what is the question - deal, no deal, remain as now, remain on new terms or something else (rank the options 1, 2, 3 or have a cross for a first and second preference in two columns as applies in Mayoral elections) or first past the post. Because if no deal or remain is excluded a lot of people won't be happy and the legitimacy will be questioned and there will be all sorts of squabbling over the voting system if there are 3 options or more.
Also Would NI have a different question re the backstop?
Cos questions matter - ask people if they want a people's vote on the deal or a second referendum on Brexit. The former from my recollection is far more popular in polling even though the two are the same thing.
My personal view is that we should have a second referendum before the end of March: either on The Deal vs Remain or No Deal vs Remain.
Voting for Leave in principle - which is what the British did in 2016 - is one thing. But it is not undemocratic to ask them to confirm that they do want to Leave once we know the terms on which we are doing so.
No Deal is not Never A Deal. It is to leave on 29th March without having concluded a treaty on trade to replace what we have now, but it does not rule out concluding a deal in April or May. So in practice we would be leaving "in principle" under No Deal, because in all likelihood the terms of our leaving would quickly evolve from that. The future relationship would certainly not be settled.
At the moment the EU is everything it can to derail any meaningful Brexit, and gambling that by taking the hardest of lines the UK will change course. In this they are aided by a PM who clearly wants to avoid a meaningful Brexit, and they are exploiting that. But it is massively in the interests of the export-led economies of the EU to have unfettered access to UK markets and preserve the volume of their trade surplus with us. Once the default position of the UK leaving the EU has been implemented, in terms of one that could potentially put those trade volumes in jeopardy, then the EU states will not want things to carry on without an agreement for long.
Vassal State is the only option that satisfies all three red lines. I will resign unless I get to be a vassal sounds odd, but we live in strange times.
Not at all , both are happy to lick Westminster butts and so doing it to EU is no issue for them. Two more useless scoundrels have yet to be seen , dumb and dumber.
Comments
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1051448257363226625
So, if we are actually interested in not causing sectarian discord, it would not seem very sensible to do the one thing that is most likely to cause trouble. And probably suggests why it has been completely inappropriate for the EU to go down this road in the first place.
Re Saudi, much trickier issue. It seems to me we have for years sucked up to an truly odious regime because, and only because, they have a lot of money. Clearly risk 'cutting off our noses' to some extent but we really need to find better methods of making our way in the world than selling weapons to nasty, illiberal, undemocratic regimes imo.
The penny must has dropped on everyone by now, the deals been done. We are leaving but staying in CU. At least 60% of voters will endorse this in next March’s “do you accept this fudge yes or no” ref sealing this deal for next thirty years. Canada, Norway, people’s vote, Remain, no deal, hard Brexit, that’s all in the past now. Gone. Leave it alone. Put down your weary tune.
You’re boring us with your counterfactuals.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1051239125746114565
The week when the vast amounts of Brexit shit that has been backing up inside Theresa May is about to explode out of her and hit the rapidly rotating Euro-fan.
Absolutely *everyone* is about to get covered in it.
https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/1104/739633-prime-time-cross-border-poll-test-page/
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.thejournal.ie/united-ireland-poll-3-4059433-Jun2018/?amp=1
In the future it will be seen in much the same terms as the appeasement of the Nazis.
Due to travel I’ll be off PB from today until Saturday. I think this will turn out to be a blessing.
Lol
That presupposes there will ever be a solution to the NI border that the EU would accept. That seems unlikely given the history of the negotiations, and that is assuming the EU don’t then kick off on Spain/Gibraltar.
' The UK government's website lists the Secretary of State for Scotland's responsibilities as being:
"The main role of the Scottish Secretary is to promote and protect the devolution settlement. Other responsibilities include promoting partnership between the UK government and the Scottish government, and relations between the 2 Parliaments."'
And that perhaps is also the issue with a peoples vote or second referendum - if parliament cannot agree on a deal who says parliament will agree the question to be asked (as it will need legislation), what if the Lords objects and what is the mandate (i.e. the Tories won the 2015 election and had this as a manifesto commitment). Its not obvious there is a consensus on the questions - would we have 3 options and use an electoral system we rejected in a referendum in 2011 to overtturn a referendum we held in 2016?
What of course do all of the options mean in the medium to long term - are we any clearer than 26 months ago? And who can predict how voters may react and how opinions can change - we perhaps forget that in July 2015 one poll had remain ahead by 44% - as we saw in last year's election things can move quite dramatically quite quickly.
In the event of no deal though all that changes. The box is opened and either no deal is a disaster and we are desperate for a deal. Which leaves us in relatively the same position negotiating wise as we are now. Or Brexit is a success and we realise we can be fine without a deal but a good deal would still be nice to have. In which case we would negotiate as equals not supplicants.
It is a serious matter though - should the EU be allowed to dictate a non member's trade policies forever? Because that is what we face without a timelimit and our right to leave the CU - or NI solves the issue and joins the Republic. I can't see why anyone would see that as desirable - we could leave the EU but never leave the CU?
I am surprised no one has described this as the Turkey option because as far as I am aware its the only sizeable nation not in the single market, not in the EU but in customs union with the EU? Vote for the Turkey!
NEW THREAD
Cos the people's vote campaign has only been very vague about having a 'vote on the deal'. But what is the question - deal, no deal, remain as now, remain on new terms or something else (rank the options 1, 2, 3 or have a cross for a first and second preference in two columns as applies in Mayoral elections) or first past the post. Because if no deal or remain is excluded a lot of people won't be happy and the legitimacy will be questioned and there will be all sorts of squabbling over the voting system if there are 3 options or more.
Also Would NI have a different question re the backstop?
Cos questions matter - ask people if they want a people's vote on the deal or a second referendum on Brexit. The former from my recollection is far more popular in polling even though the two are the same thing.
So in practice we would be leaving "in principle" under No Deal, because in all likelihood the terms of our leaving would quickly evolve from that. The future relationship would certainly not be settled.
At the moment the EU is everything it can to derail any meaningful Brexit, and gambling that by taking the hardest of lines the UK will change course. In this they are aided by a PM who clearly wants to avoid a meaningful Brexit, and they are exploiting that. But it is massively in the interests of the export-led economies of the EU to have unfettered access to UK markets and preserve the volume of their trade surplus with us. Once the default position of the UK leaving the EU has been implemented, in terms of one that could potentially put those trade volumes in jeopardy, then the EU states will not want things to carry on without an agreement for long.