Well, we will keep this post of yours and see what happens. 🤔 I did follow what EU Barnier and EU said, I just don’t believe they can’t move from it.
CU+the Barnier bit you mention fudged = deal Brit and EU sign, British Parliament and all Parliaments stamp, and for good measure UK has a 1975 do you back this deal ref 21st March to get 60% of public endorsing it too.
It’s not the chaos of no deal, it’s the antagonistic and competitive relationship both parties end up in that is bigger threat than any of the details currently pokerfaced over.
Oh. And the Irish. EU member who suffer greatly from no deal, so will start to modify their position, any second now
They can budge. Look how blatantly the Commission flouts the law when it suits them (e.g. Selmayr, the ban on British beef but not French beef). If they had the will, a way would be found.
But ultimately, they won't budge, because they believe firmly in the integrity of their project as they define it ahead of real life, common sense, economic reality and democratic processes. It's stupid, short-sighted and likely to end in disaster for everyone, us first and them a little later. But it is entirely typical of a block where being a third-rate drunk with a track record of Fascistic behaviour and a deep love of helping big business avoid tax is considered de rigeur for its highest office.
So that is why I have been predicting this mess all the way through.
Agreed they can budge but they won't. Why should they?
It's a very resistable force (May) meets an unmoveable object (sclerotic Europe). Europe's just going to sit there and wait for us to fold..
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Remain is better than BINO.
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
Indeed as 48% of the country told you, Remain is the best option. Good to see you finally seeing the light.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
I am a Conservative Member too, No Deal crashes the economy and risks Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I will never accept that
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Especially in the context of an intransigent EU trying to demand the break up of our country.
It is No Deal that will break up the country with indyref2 in Scotland and a majority in NI for a United Ireland
Brexit is a classic example of how not to run a project. The prats who proposed it couldn’t organise piss ups, orgies and sales in respectively breweries, brothels and whelk stalls.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
I am a Conservative Member too, No Deal crashes the economy and risks Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I will never accept that
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Especially in the context of an intransigent EU trying to demand the break up of our country.
It is No Deal that will break up the country with indyref2 in Scotland and a majority in NI for a United Ireland
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
The only way May can pass the decision to Parliament is to resign and let Parliament pick a new PM.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Remain is better than BINO.
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
Which, of course, is exactly what the EU want us to do.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Remain is better than BINO.
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
Which, of course, is exactly what the EU want us to do.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
If you read what I am saying, you will see that the issue is not 'Tory hardline nutters'. The issue is that MPs will be forced to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop not linked to any ultimate outcome and the HoC will never vote for this - there would be an overwhelming majority against.
The HoC will vote for it if it is the agreed deal. They will pinch their noses, swallow their pride, look the other way and kiss the boots of Barnier and pretend they didn't.
But there can't be an agreed deal - that is the whole point! May cannot even get Barnier to agree a UK wide backstop as part of A50 because he says it is illegal and has to be negotiated outside of A50 after Brexit. .
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
The EU won't agree to CU+'regulatory alignment for goods'.
They will agree to CU+SM which is Brexit In Name Only, but will demand full implementation of the four freedoms (an SM rule) and full fiscal contributions without a rebate (also an SM rule).
Again I am not in total agreement. They will not allow CU + regulatory alignment as a means to facilitate frictionless trade with NI and the EU - that is Chequers. But if the UK stays in the CU but with a regulatory border in the Irish Sea, they will still insist on GB following most EU regulations. But there will still be a regulatory border with NI and the EU generally, so no frictionless trade.
Your other scenarios I agree with completely; also agree it is worse than remain.
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
The only way May can pass the decision to Parliament is to resign and let Parliament pick a new PM.
Quite. If she can't get a deal I have always thought she would resign.
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Agreed that is what was agreed.
However since then Barnier has insisted it can't be a whole UK backstop as that would mean we would be following some rules but won't eg be following rules on free movement and payments. We either have to swallow everything (Single Market) or not.
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Yes, the EUs position is that if the UK remains in the CU and maintains full alignment with EU regulations this would be an attempt to remain in the SM 'by the back door' without accepting the four freedoms, money etc.
So the EU want NI in the CU+SM and GB just in the CU, with a regulatory border (but not a customs border) in the Irish Sea. But they apparently won't even agree this until after Brexit - for now they insist on the NI only backstop. Both the NI only backstop and the UK backstop are in conflict with para 50 of the December agreement which prohibits new barriers being established in the Irish Sea without the consent of NI.
The EU will not accept any unilateral declarations by the UK.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Remain is better than BINO.
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
Which, of course, is exactly what the EU want us to do.
EU will bite our hand off for CU+defenestration BINO you describe, yet some people insist the poker faces at the EU are not bluffing.
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Yes, the EUs position is that if the UK remains in the CU and maintains full alignment with EU regulations this would be an attempt to remain in the SM 'by the back door' without accepting the four freedoms, money etc.
So the EU want NI in the CU+SM and GB just in the CU, with a regulatory border (but not a customs border) in the Irish Sea. But they apparently won't even agree this until after Brexit - for now they insist on the NI only backstop. Both the NI only backstop and the UK backstop are in conflict with para 50 of the December agreement which prohibits new barriers being established in the Irish Sea without the consent of NI.
The EU will not accept any unilateral declarations by the UK.
Are you sure? So the U.K. says we will continue to accept the 4 freedoms and maintain full reg alignment, does the EU say that doesn’t meet the Dec 17 agreement? Or that it does but the EU is reneging on the Dec 17 agreement? Remember that would mean we accept free movement of EU goods, establishments, Labour, capital into the U.K., not that we get it in return for U.K. citizens/businesses - has the EU said that doesn’t count? My impression is no - it’s a crap deal for the U.K. but it’s what we signed up to.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
The only way May can pass the decision to Parliament is to resign and let Parliament pick a new PM.
No, it is Parliament that should decide on the final Brexit Deal as it decided on invoking Article 50 in the first place as the SC confirmed in the Miller case
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop for NI to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
You are contradicting yourself. Davidson has said she will not vote for the backstop because it will risk the Union. There is NO WAY of guaranteeing that the SM+CU deal will ever be made - even Wallonia can vote it down- it will take years. In the meantime, the Union is put at risk by the backstop.
If the HoC did try to vote for the permanent NI-backstop, the DUP will force a general election. The Tories would get destroyed. Which, all things considered, would probably serve them right.
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Agreed that is what was agreed.
However since then Barnier has insisted it can't be a whole UK backstop as that would mean we would be following some rules but won't eg be following rule as on free movement and payments. We either have to swallow everything (Single Market) or not.
Parliament will vote to swallow everything rather than No Deal
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
The only way May can pass the decision to Parliament is to resign and let Parliament pick a new PM.
Quite. If she can't get a deal I have always thought she would resign.
She won't, May could not give a toss about Brexit, she was a Remainer after all. If it is BINO Brexit she will ensure the EU and Parliament have to take the blame.
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Agreed that is what was agreed.
However since then Barnier has insisted it can't be a whole UK backstop as that would mean we would be following some rules but won't eg be following rule as on free movement and payments. We either have to swallow everything (Single Market) or not.
Parliament will vote to swallow everything rather than No Deal
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
I don't see how a longer transition helps this. It seems that May will say that it makes the backstop less likely, but if it is still permanent and there is obviously no real trade agreement I am not sure how this advances her case. I might be missing something.
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
But don't you think that if MPs want to overturn the result of the referendum, they should just vote to do it themselves and take the consequences at the next election?
Are you sure about that? Para 49 of the December 17 agreement says
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Agreed that is what was agreed.
However since then Barnier has insisted it can't be a whole UK backstop as that would mean we would be following some rules but won't eg be following rule as on free movement and payments. We either have to swallow everything (Single Market) or not.
Parliament will vote to swallow everything rather than No Deal
I don't see how a longer transition helps this. It seems that May will say that it makes the backstop less likely, but if it is still permanent and there is obviously no real trade agreement I am not sure how this advances her case. I might be missing something.
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
But don't you think that if MPs want to overturn the result of the referendum, they should just vote to do it themselves and take the consequences at the next election?
A longer transition as an alternative to the backstop I'd be OK with. IE if the EU said 'technical solutions to the border will take 5 years, so you need to be in a transition for five year by the end of which we won't need the backstop anymore' then that could work for everyone.
But I don't see the EU agreeing to that. If we had a stronger PM they might.
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
The only way May can pass the decision to Parliament is to resign and let Parliament pick a new PM.
Quite. If she can't get a deal I have always thought she would resign.
The only way she will resign is if the cabinet ask her to
I would have thought her durability has already been amply demonstrated
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
The only way May can pass the decision to Parliament is to resign and let Parliament pick a new PM.
Quite. If she can't get a deal I have always thought she would resign.
She won't, May could not give a toss about Brexit, she was a Remainer after all. If it is BINO Brexit she will ensure the EU and Parliament have to take the blame.
She will ensure nothing of the sort. She is PM and the buck stops with her. She may want the EU and Parliament to take the blame but people always blame the PM and quite right too!
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
The UK needs a Oliver Cromwell type figure to sort it out.
Well, we will keep this post of yours and see what happens. 🤔 I did follow what EU Barnier and EU said, I just don’t believe they can’t move from it.
CU+the Barnier bit you mention fudged = deal Brit and EU sign, British Parliament and all Parliaments stamp, and for good measure UK has a 1975 do you back this deal ref 21st March to get 60% of public endorsing it too.
It’s not the chaos of no deal, it’s the antagonistic and competitive relationship both parties end up in that is bigger threat than any of the details currently pokerfaced over.
Oh. And the Irish. EU member who suffer greatly from no deal, so will start to modify their position, any second now
They can budge. Look how blatantly the Commission flouts the law when it suits them (e.g. Selmayr, the ban on British beef but not French beef). If they had the will, a way would be found.
But ultimately, they won't budge, because they believe firmly in the integrity of their project as they define it ahead of real life, common sense, economic reality and democratic processes. It's stupid, short-sighted and likely to end in disaster for everyone, us first and them a little later. But it is entirely typical of a block where being a third-rate drunk with a track record of Fascistic behaviour and a deep love of helping big business avoid tax is considered de rigeur for its highest office.
So that is why I have been predicting this mess all the way through.
I don’t disagree with you except BINO around CU doesn’t really hurt the integrity around their project. Or put another way How can they not give us a deal so similar to what they have given Turkey? Unlike Norway minus or Canada with goodness knows how many pluses, our BINO will be straightforward Turkey. That’s why they’ve been waiting till Christmas. It’s all making sense now isn’t it? Tusk already has pun lined up about stuffing.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop for NI to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
You are contradicting yourself. Davidson has said she will not vote for the backstop because it will risk the Union. There is NO WAY of guaranteeing that the SM+CU deal will ever be made - even Wallonia can vote it down- it will take years. In the meantime, the Union is put at risk by the backstop.
If the HoC did try to vote for the permanent NI-backstop, the DUP will force a general election. The Tories would get destroyed. Which, all things considered, would probably serve them right.
Davidson is not even an MP.
There does not need to be a SM + CU deal as that will be the transition Barnier confirmed last week will now be until at least the end of 2021, that could just be extended. The backstop meanwhile of SM + CU for NI will apply indefinitely meanwhile unless a technical solution found to the Irish border.
It is No Deal Brexit that threatens the Union and Scotland and NI leaving it.
The average voter does not care about the backstop, as long as we get a deal May can give a vague promise of a FTA at some point in a distant galaxy if we ever agree a technical solution to the Irish border. Most of the fanatics like you already defected to UKIP after Chequers and yet still the Tories are at least level with Labour after winning over some 2017 Lab + LD voters
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
I don't see how a longer transition helps this. It seems that May will say that it makes the backstop less likely, but if it is still permanent and there is obviously no real trade agreement I am not sure how this advances her case. I might be missing something.
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
But don't you think that if MPs want to overturn the result of the referendum, they should just vote to do it themselves and take the consequences at the next election?
A longer transition as an alternative to the backstop I'd be OK with. IE if the EU said 'technical solutions to the border will take 5 years, so you need to be in a transition for five year by the end of which we won't need the backstop anymore' then that could work for everyone.
But I don't see the EU agreeing to that. If we had a stronger PM they might.
The EU have no interest in us ever formally existing the customs union and making such an arrangement work.
Only positive is that with 5 years of altered trade patterns and all trade deals replicated + some new ones that we might be able to prepare for a no-deal with a far smaller risk, at a time of our choosing.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say a Tory majority of 100 seats+ with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with at least 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU or vote for EUref2 over No Deal it won't
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
I don't see how a longer transition helps this. It seems that May will say that it makes the backstop less likely, but if it is still permanent and there is obviously no real trade agreement I am not sure how this advances her case. I might be missing something.
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
But don't you think that if MPs want to overturn the result of the referendum, they should just vote to do it themselves and take the consequences at the next election?
You are assuming that a second referendum would win
If somehow the HOC votes for a second referendum there are many questions to be resolved and yesterday an EU official said they would welcome us to stay but we would lose our rebate.
On comments like that referendums can be lost to remain
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
The UK needs a Oliver Cromwell type figure to sort it out.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
The UK needs a Oliver Cromwell type figure to sort it out.
Given the range of things Cromwell did in his time, I feel like you might need to specify what Cromwellian thing you think is needed.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
The UK needs a Oliver Cromwell type figure to sort it out.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
Indeed. Often see Poker analogies but the one analogy I've never seen anyone post yet (which I'm sorry if someone has) is that the election result was the equivalent of a psychologically damaging 'bad beat'. May thought she had aces, thought her opponent was weak, bet big and lost her majority. She's not been able to play the game properly since.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
I think Nick Timothy's idea of having a 5 year transition period before we rejoin is a good one.
US Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is facing a backlash after revealing a DNA test, which she says validates her claims of Native American heritage.
The Cherokee Nation slammed the results for showing trace amounts of native DNA. US President Donald Trump later took to Twitter to taunt Ms Warren.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, it is Parliament which is sovereign under our constitution not the Tory Party.
In any case I think in the end only the ERG backed minority of Tory MPs will back no deal over SM+CU backstop for NI and transition period for GB, a majority of Tory MPs voted Remain after all
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
Yes, what the electorate did was to make a bipartisan consensus Brexit the only way forward. At that point it would have been worth forming an all party negotiating team. Instead the Tories have tried to ram through their version based upon 42% of the vote.
An all party negotiating team would have been much less divisive, and more likely to come up with a long term solution that all parties would stick to.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
The UK needs a Oliver Cromwell type figure to sort it out.
One way of solving the Irish problem, I guess.
That’s a very very hard Brexit.
I shall worry if the NoDealers start talking about needing to avoid an effusion of blood in future.
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
I don't see how a longer transition helps this. It seems that May will say that it makes the backstop less likely, but if it is still permanent and there is obviously no real trade agreement I am not sure how this advances her case. I might be missing something.
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
But don't you think that if MPs want to overturn the result of the referendum, they should just vote to do it themselves and take the consequences at the next election?
You are assuming that a second referendum would win
If somehow the HOC votes for a second referendum there are many questions to be resolved and yesterday an EU official said they would welcome us to stay but we would lose our rebate.
On comments like that referendums can be lost to remain
Provided that there was a referendum where the only options were defined outcomes that existed in the real world, you’d assume remain beats any single alternative, and any withdrawal arrangement beats no deal. The fact that Cameron thought he could win for remain versus fantasy-unicorn says as much about the weakness of his position after accidentally winning an unwanted GE majority as it does about his poorly-prepared over-confidence.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, it is Parliament which is sovereign under our constitution not the Tory Party.
In any case I think in the end only the ERG backed minority of Tory MPs will back no deal over SM+CU backstop for NI and transition period for GB, a majority of Tory MPs voted Remain after all
Parliament is more complicated than your simplistic scenarios.
Parliament can reject the government, the government's own party can also reject the government. Parliament can block actions, but it can't force them. It take a government to make actions happen and that takes a party being able to command the house.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, it is Parliament which is sovereign under our constitution not the Tory Party.
In any case I think in the end only the ERG backed minority of Tory MPs will back no deal over SM+CU backstop for NI and transition period for GB, a majority of Tory MPs voted Remain after all
Yet, the Conservative Party is in office and supplies the Government and its confidence.
It’s more likely to result in a leadership challenge and a General Election.
I notice you’ve changed your tune on the point now, and are now talking of SM+CU for NI and a transition for GB, which of course is different to SM + CU for the whole UK.
When one looks at the economy RIGHT NOW, the government is doing very well indeed - unemployment down 47,000; CPI, RPI inflation both under control, wage growth on the up, deficit reducing..
You can add retail sales and house building at record levels as well.
This might explain why:
' The pick-up in wage growth to 3.1% per annum with unemployment holding at 4% are extremely good news, say Costas Milas and Mike Ellington of the University of Liverpool.
They believe it shows Britain’s economy is growing faster than official data suggest:
"Notice that the pickup in wage growth has not put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is consistent with our view that the UK economy can afford paying higher wages because it is growing better than currently thought. Indeed, our latest LSE blog suggests that since the EU Referendum vote the UK economy has over-performed by 0.5% per annum based on monthly GDP evidence compared to what the traditional quarterly GDP data suggests.
Consequently, we are taking the view that the ONS will revise upwards its quarterly GDP growth sooner than later. This could happen as early as the 9th of November when the ONS will report its first GDP estimate for 2018 Q3." '
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, il
Parliament is more complicated than your simplistic scenarios.
Parliament can reject the government, the government's own party can also reject the government. Parliament can block actions, but it can't force them. It take a government to make actions happen and that takes a party being able to command the house.
I think a significant number of moderate Labour MPs would prefer BINO Brexit 'Ramsay MacMay' with the ERG on the backbenches spitting blood at her as a zombie PM able to do very little than to force a general election and risk PM Corbyn who they loathe
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I appreciate your answer which seems to accept that their is a chance that this could end up with a second referendum. The question is not too much of a problem as the Electoral Commission would recommend the wording and of course it would pass through both HOC and HOL within 24 hours, especially as the HOL is overwhelmingly pro remain
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
Surely PB can clear up technicalities leading to referendum wordings. There’s how it came about in 75 and 2016 to draw on at least? Shall we?
1) If government get a deal the most sensible ref to have is straightforward like 1975, do you back this deal, yes or no. Are we agreed on this bit? 2) if government propose that type of vote, the proposal and wording actually agreed in HoC what practical role does electoral commission actually play? 3) the proposal and wording can come under attack in the commons, amendments to be voted on? How does government control that. 4) if no deal, and Parliament wants a second ref, how does that one get set up without the executive driving it? When people use the phrase “Parliament will take control” what does that even mean? 5) anything more than 2 options leads to less of a decisive result, so Parliament would be daft to set up one of those?
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, il
Parliament is more complicated than your simplistic scenarios.
Parliament can reject the government, the government's own party can also reject the government. Parliament can block actions, but it can't force them. It take a government to make actions happen and that takes a party being able to command the house.
I think a significant number of moderate Labour MPs would prefer BINO Brexit 'Ramsay MacMay' with the ERG on the backbenches spitting blood at her as a zombie PM able to do very little than to force a general election and risk PM Corbyn who they loathe
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
Why?
As Archer has said so. In reality the whole UK could stay in the single market and customs union.
It is only ERG opposition to the SM that prevented it for GB and Hannanite opposition to the CU that prevented that for GB. We would stay in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway once the backstop is agreed
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, it ll
Yet, the Conservative Party is in office and supplies the Government and its confidence.
It’s more likely to result in a leadership challenge and a General Election.
I notice you’ve changed your tune on the point now, and are now talking of SM+CU for NI and a transition for GB, which of course is different to SM + CU for the whole UK.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
Why?
As Archer has said so. In reality the whole UK could stay in the single market and customs union.
It is only ERG opposition to the SM that prevented it for GB and Hannanite opposition to the CU that prevented that for GB. We would stay in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway once the backstop is agreed
The Single Market requires freedom of movement.
The Customs Union prevents our own Free Trade Deals, we are heading for BINO Brexit.
(Though of course Eastern European migration has fallen since the Leave vote anyway).
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
No matter what one may think of Barnier and Juncker they are not Hitler and Goering and they are not planning to invade Poland and then ultimately the UK.
This is not the Battle of Britain 2 no matter how excited some Brexiteers like you get at the prospect of No Deal!
I'll say this - 'confirmatory ballot of the people' is not exactly catchy, but it is less obvious marketing guff than 'People'sVote' in distinguishing the difference between the proposed action and previous action.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
Who knows? Boris may end up Tory leader before the next general election but we will have a Deal and we will still have a UK to lead, quite possibly with a Unionist majority at Holyrood in 2021
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
No matter what one may think of Barnier and Juncker they are not Hitler and Goering and they are not planning to invade the UK.
This is not the Battle of Britain 2.
Err, I know.
And the award for entirely missing the point goes to.
I have read all 155 pages of the Cox Report. If Bercow had any understanding of its absolutely withering criticisms and any honour, he would resign this evening.
It is well worth reading. It paints a horrifying picture which ought to shame MPs and the House's senior management.
It describes a culture where MPs and staff commit with impunity acts which in some cases amount to criminal offences and at a minimum are utterly wrong. Those who complain are put in fear of their jobs and pressure is put on them to put up with behaviour which no-one, in this day and age, should have to put up with. Its procedures are woefully inadequate and not fit for the purpose and do not even comply with current laws let alone best practice. Even the proposed new scheme is described as not worth the paper it is printed on. Investigations are amateurish and conducted by people who do not know what they are doing and press complainants to try and reach informal resolutions with their harassers.
MPs are described as practising "omertà" in respect of bad conduct by one of their number. “Members turn a blind eye to dishonourable behaviour by others, and they have perpetuated a system where they remain largely judge and jury in respect of their own conduct.”
She describes the belief in Parliamentary privilege to be a smokescreen saying of it:
"If the privilege cannot be not a charter for concealing criminal conduct by an MP, no more can it be used to conceal the sexual harassment of staff, or to conceal other bullying or harassive conduct towards staff while he is on Parliamentary premises, being conduct of a kind which would be considered unlawful in any other place of work. Both forms of misconduct may simultaneously involve criminal conduct, and both devalue and undermine the reputation of Parliament in the same way."
MPs have learnt nothing from the Nolan rules on Standards in Public Life and the bad culture is so entrenched and has been around for so long that Cox says she finds it
"difficult to envisage how the necessary changes can be successfully delivered, and the confidence of the staff restored, under the current senior House administration. As one contributor put it, “We need to press the reset button, but I’m not sure the senior administration understand that, or even know what it means.”
The whole process needs tearing up and doing properly by people who really mean it and who do not have "a devotion to process and language rather than to effectiveness".
On the basis of this report I would not advise any young woman or ethnic minority or any young man to go and work in the House, not if they value their peace of mind.
It is shocking and it simply is not good enough for Bercow to hang around. He cannot be part of the solution. And those MPs who do not see this are themselves part of the problem.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
You forgot Lord Halifax is nailed on to succeed Chamberlain, and Churchill has NO chance.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
Why?
As Archer has said so. In reality the whole UK could stay in the single market and customs union.
It is only ERG opposition to the SM that prevented it for GB and Hannanite opposition to the CU that prevented that for GB. We would stay in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway once the backstop is agreed
The Single Market requires freedom of movement.
The Customs Union prevents our own Free Trade Deals, we are heading for BINO Brexit.
(Though of course Eastern European migration has fallen since the Leave vote anyway).
In your scenario, the Tories have to pick exactly how they're going to commit seppuku. No deal, or reneging on FoM. The Tory base will not forgive either, nor will the country. The Tories are far too blithe about the existential threat they face.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
You forgot Lord Halifax is nailed on to succeed Chamberlain, and Churchill has NO chance.
I have read all 155 pages of the Cox Report. If Bercow had any understanding of its absolutely withering criticisms and any honour, he would resign this evening.
It is well worth reading. It paints a horrifying picture which ought to shame MPs and the House's senior management.
It describes a culture where MPs and staff commit with impunity acts which in some cases amount to criminal offences and at a minimum are utterly wrong. Those who complain are put in fear of their jobs and pressure is put on them to put up with behaviour which no-one, in this day and age, should have to put up with. Its procedures are woefully inadequate and not fit for the purpose and do not even comply with current laws let alone best practice. Even the proposed new scheme is described as not worth the paper it is printed on. Investigations are amateurish and conducted by people who do not know what they are doing and press complainants to try and reach informal resolutions with their harassers.
MPs are described as practising "omertà" in respect of bad conduct by one of their number. “Members turn a blind eye to dishonourable behaviour by others, and they have perpetuated a system where they remain largely judge and jury in respect of their own conduct.”
She describes the belief in Parliamentary privilege to be a smokescreen saying of it:
"If the privilege cannot be not a charter for concealing criminal conduct by an MP, no more can it be used to conceal the sexual harassment of staff, or to conceal other bullying or harassive conduct towards staff while he is on Parliamentary premises, being conduct of a kind which would be considered unlawful in any other place of work. Both forms of misconduct may simultaneously involve criminal conduct, and both devalue and undermine the reputation of Parliament in the same way."
MPs have learnt nothing from the Nolan rules on Standards in Public Life and the bad culture is so entrenched and has been around for so long that Cox says she finds it
"difficult to envisage how the necessary changes can be successfully delivered, and the confidence of the staff restored, under the current senior House administration. As one contributor put it, “We need to press the reset button, but I’m not sure the senior administration understand that, or even know what it means.”
The whole process needs tearing up and doing properly by people who really mean it and who do not have "a devotion to process and language rather than to effectiveness".
On the basis of this report I would not advise any young woman or ethnic minority or any young man to go and work in the House, not if they value their peace of mind.
It is shocking and it simply is not good enough for Bercow to hang around. He cannot be part of the solution. And those MPs who do not see this are themselves part of the problem.
I agree with HY. But outside PB bubble everyone slow on picking up on how profound this is.
Indeed, it was the pivotal statement on Brexit since Article 50 was invoked
Yes. Amazing it has not been more widely discussed, outside these parts. It changes the dynamic in a fundamental way. Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
That will be for Parliament to decide, I expect it to cave in to Barnier
It's funny how a few weeks ago you were singing the praises of Boris and how inevitably Boris was going to take over. Now its that we are inevitably going CUSM.
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
I imagine a September 1st 1939 HYUFD:
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
No matter what one may think of Barnier and Juncker they are not Hitler and Goering and they are not planning to invade the UK.
This is not the Battle of Britain 2.
Err, I know.
And the award for entirely missing the point goes to.
No, that is the point.
Brexiteers like you are too busy reliving 'Darkest Hour' fantasies of a No Deal Brexit, while ignoring the threat to the Union and the economy from No Deal
Y'all know I'm the modern day Oliver Cromwell, sans the Puritanism.
It makes sense.
You too, worry about the tyranny of perpetual parliaments?
After worrying about being served a pizza with pineapple on it, it is my second biggest worry in life.
I feel like Cromwell would have strongly disapproved of pineapple on a pizza. I hope you like plain, russet coats as well.
Edit: Ha, I was looking at a few quotes from Cromwell (though I do own several large volumes with his collected words and writings) and the first one on wikiquote is one I have not seen before but which we see its like a lot in modern politics - the 'I'm leaving the country quote'
If the remonstrance had been rejected I would have sold all I had the next morning and never have seen England more, and I know there are many other modest men of the same resolution
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. .
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
To be fair to May, she might have actually been able to do that had she got a majority of 100. She could have passed any legalisation regardless and the only problem would have been the Lords.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Agreed but to be harsh on May it is 100% her fault that she didn't get that majority.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
To be honest, I’ve had a gut feeling we’d be stuffed ever since I saw the exit poll.
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
If May had got a landslide, say 100 seats with lots of new ERG Tory linked MPs the Commons may have accepted No Deal just about, as it is she lost her majority and with 40 Tory MPs who will accept SM + CU over No Deal it won't
If c.350 MPs look to be voting for SM + CU and only 40 of them are Tories then she’ll resign before she’s no confidenced.
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Tough, it ll
Yet, the Conservative Party is in office and supplies the Government and its confidence.
It’s more likely to result in a leadership challenge and a General Election.
I notice you’ve changed your tune on the point now, and are now talking of SM+CU for NI and a transition for GB, which of course is different to SM + CU for the whole UK.
In effect it isn't, as the transition could well end up being permanent with an application for EFTA membership unless a technical solution is found to the Irish border that ends the backstop and enables a FTA.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Wriggle wriggle.
I love how you’re referring to the Tory party in the 3rd person tonight. Classic.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
Why?
As Archer has said so. In reality the whole UK could stay in the single market and customs union.
It is only ERG opposition to the SM that prevented it for GB and Hannanite opposition to the CU that prevented that for GB. We would stay in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway once the backstop is agreed
The Single Market requires freedom of movement.
The Customs Union prevents our own Free Trade Deals, we are heading for BINO Brexit.
(Though of course Eastern European migration has fallen since the Leave vote anyway).
In your scenario, the Tories have to pick exactly how they're going to commit seppuku. No deal, or reneging on FoM. The Tory base will not forgive either, nor will the country. The Tories are far too blithe about the existential threat they face.
The country prefers Remain over No Deal 55% to 45%.
No Deal risks an existential threat to the Union and Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I would rather the Tories were 20 years in opposition than break up the country!
Comments
It's a very resistable force (May) meets an unmoveable object (sclerotic Europe). Europe's just going to sit there and wait for us to fold..
I quote the PM direct 'If it was the case the negotiations produced no deal, it would come back to this House to decide the way forward'
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/oct/15/brexit-uk-accuses-eu-of-trying-to-impose-backstop-to-the-backstop-politics-live
“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all- island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.”
On my reading, the U.K. can unilaterally commit to maintaining full alignment. That doesn’t require EU permission, it’s just saying ‘we will follow the rules’. The EU has offered NI-only as a way of making it *easier* - I.e. it requires the U.K. to do less than it signed up to in December 2017. I’ve lost track of all the claims and counterclaims but has Barnier taken the position that the backstop is only acceptable if NI remains aligned AND the rest of the U.K. diverges? Or is it that the government isn’t prepared to honour either the whole commitment or an NI subset?
Your other scenarios I agree with completely; also agree it is worse than remain.
Why he would be more likely to do that than say Lindsay Hoyle I have not idea?
Like I say, Brexit has driven them bonkers...
However since then Barnier has insisted it can't be a whole UK backstop as that would mean we would be following some rules but won't eg be following rules on free movement and payments. We either have to swallow everything (Single Market) or not.
So the EU want NI in the CU+SM and GB just in the CU, with a regulatory border (but not a customs border) in the Irish Sea. But they apparently won't even agree this until after Brexit - for now they insist on the NI only backstop. Both the NI only backstop and the UK backstop are in conflict with para 50 of the December agreement which prohibits new barriers being established in the Irish Sea without the consent of NI.
The EU will not accept any unilateral declarations by the UK.
Then again, Hill and Timothy would have still reigned supreme so it’s quite possible she would have still cocked it up.
Ultimately she should have gone then.
However, that is not my preferred solution. I want to leave and still hope TM will achieve a deal and it is encouraging Germany is suggesting a longer transistion. For me upto 5 years would be fine
I cannot, and will not, accept no deal and, while I have little faith in our mps, I do believe the HOC would stop it happening
If the HoC did try to vote for the permanent NI-backstop, the DUP will force a general election. The Tories would get destroyed. Which, all things considered, would probably serve them right.
The Electoral Commission cannot 'set'; the terms of the referendum, only recommend the wording based on what Parliament determines are the questions. So the arguments over whether this is deal vs no deal, remain v leave, extend vs leave etc etc all have to be solved by the HoC. There is no clear view and I doubt they will be able to agree on this; they can't agree on anything else.
But don't you think that if MPs want to overturn the result of the referendum, they should just vote to do it themselves and take the consequences at the next election?
But I don't see the EU agreeing to that. If we had a stronger PM they might.
I would have thought her durability has already been amply demonstrated
That bloody difficult woman
Unlike Norway minus or Canada with goodness knows how many pluses, our BINO will be straightforward Turkey. That’s why they’ve been waiting till Christmas.
It’s all making sense now isn’t it? Tusk already has pun lined up about stuffing.
There does not need to be a SM + CU deal as that will be the transition Barnier confirmed last week will now be until at least the end of 2021, that could just be extended. The backstop meanwhile of SM + CU for NI will apply indefinitely meanwhile unless a technical solution found to the Irish border.
It is No Deal Brexit that threatens the Union and Scotland and NI leaving it.
The average voter does not care about the backstop, as long as we get a deal May can give a vague promise of a FTA at some point in a distant galaxy if we ever agree a technical solution to the Irish border. Most of the fanatics like you already defected to UKIP after Chequers and yet still the Tories are at least level with Labour after winning over some 2017 Lab + LD voters
In fact, I felt those doubts 48 hours earlier from David Herdson and Cyclefree and my own instinct, and even earlier following dementiataxgate, but ignored it because I really really didn’t want it to be true.
Only positive is that with 5 years of altered trade patterns and all trade deals replicated + some new ones that we might be able to prepare for a no-deal with a far smaller risk, at a time of our choosing.
Whether it is a way out, I remain to be convinced...
If somehow the HOC votes for a second referendum there are many questions to be resolved and yesterday an EU official said they would welcome us to stay but we would lose our rebate.
On comments like that referendums can be lost to remain
Her voters, members and backbenches wouldn’t ever stand for it.
Chalkokondyles means "brass knuckles", for instance.
US Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is facing a backlash after revealing a DNA test, which she says validates her claims of Native American heritage.
The Cherokee Nation slammed the results for showing trace amounts of native DNA. US President Donald Trump later took to Twitter to taunt Ms Warren.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45869804
In any case I think in the end only the ERG backed minority of Tory MPs will back no deal over SM+CU backstop for NI and transition period for GB, a majority of Tory MPs voted Remain after all
An all party negotiating team would have been much less divisive, and more likely to come up with a long term solution that all parties would stick to.
Parliament can reject the government, the government's own party can also reject the government. Parliament can block actions, but it can't force them. It take a government to make actions happen and that takes a party being able to command the house.
It’s more likely to result in a leadership challenge and a General Election.
I notice you’ve changed your tune on the point now, and are now talking of SM+CU for NI and a transition for GB, which of course is different to SM + CU for the whole UK.
You can add retail sales and house building at record levels as well.
This might explain why:
' The pick-up in wage growth to 3.1% per annum with unemployment holding at 4% are extremely good news, say Costas Milas and Mike Ellington of the University of Liverpool.
They believe it shows Britain’s economy is growing faster than official data suggest:
"Notice that the pickup in wage growth has not put upward pressure on the unemployment rate. This is consistent with our view that the UK economy can afford paying higher wages because it is growing better than currently thought. Indeed, our latest LSE blog suggests that since the EU Referendum vote the UK economy has over-performed by 0.5% per annum based on monthly GDP evidence compared to what the traditional quarterly GDP data suggests.
Consequently, we are taking the view that the ONS will revise upwards its quarterly GDP growth sooner than later. This could happen as early as the 9th of November when the ONS will report its first GDP estimate for 2018 Q3." '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/oct/16/markets-edgy-ftse-dow-uk-jobs-wages-report-business-live?page=with:block-5bc5b4c5e4b06f6eaddde8db#liveblog-navigation
Though if the economy is growing more strongly than is believed it might mean we are closer to the end of the economic cycle.
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1052265203885363205
1) If government get a deal the most sensible ref to have is straightforward like 1975, do you back this deal, yes or no. Are we agreed on this bit?
2) if government propose that type of vote, the proposal and wording actually agreed in HoC what practical role does electoral commission actually play?
3) the proposal and wording can come under attack in the commons, amendments to be voted on? How does government control that.
4) if no deal, and Parliament wants a second ref, how does that one get set up without the executive driving it? When people use the phrase “Parliament will take control” what does that even mean?
5) anything more than 2 options leads to less of a decisive result, so Parliament would be daft to set up one of those?
I swear if next week an opinion poll showed 55% want no deal you'd be saying that was inevitable.
No change there then.
In any case no vote needs to be held on the SM and CU for GB only for NI in the vote on the backstop as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
There is no way we’ll be going to war with Germany. 62% of Britons are against it, and Chamberlain wouldn’t get it through Parliament anyway as too many of them fought in ww1.
Hitler will withdraw from Poland. And Chamberlain will be PM until 1942. At least.
But the number of full time, permanent employees has continued to rise with similar falls in the number of part-time, temporary and self-employed.
So while the headline employment data hasn't changed there looks to be a steady improvement in the 'quality' of employment.
(Though of course Eastern European migration has fallen since the Leave vote anyway).
It makes sense.
This is not the Battle of Britain 2 no matter how excited some Brexiteers like you get at the prospect of No Deal!
And the award for entirely missing the point goes to.
It is well worth reading. It paints a horrifying picture which ought to shame MPs and the House's senior management.
It describes a culture where MPs and staff commit with impunity acts which in some cases amount to criminal offences and at a minimum are utterly wrong. Those who complain are put in fear of their jobs and pressure is put on them to put up with behaviour which no-one, in this day and age, should have to put up with. Its procedures are woefully inadequate and not fit for the purpose and do not even comply with current laws let alone best practice. Even the proposed new scheme is described as not worth the paper it is printed on. Investigations are amateurish and conducted by people who do not know what they are doing and press complainants to try and reach informal resolutions with their harassers.
MPs are described as practising "omertà" in respect of bad conduct by one of their number. “Members turn a blind eye to dishonourable behaviour by others, and they have perpetuated a system where they remain largely judge and jury in respect of their own conduct.”
She describes the belief in Parliamentary privilege to be a smokescreen saying of it:
"If the privilege cannot be not a charter for concealing criminal conduct by an MP, no more can it be used to conceal the sexual harassment of staff, or to conceal other bullying or harassive conduct towards staff while he is on Parliamentary premises, being conduct of a kind which would be considered unlawful in any other place of work. Both forms of misconduct may simultaneously involve criminal conduct, and both devalue and undermine the reputation of Parliament in the same way."
MPs have learnt nothing from the Nolan rules on Standards in Public Life and the bad culture is so entrenched and has been around for so long that Cox says she finds it
"difficult to envisage how the necessary changes can be successfully delivered, and the confidence of the staff restored, under the current senior House administration. As one contributor put it, “We need to press the reset button, but I’m not sure the senior administration understand that, or even know what it means.”
The whole process needs tearing up and doing properly by people who really mean it and who do not have "a devotion to process and language rather than to effectiveness".
On the basis of this report I would not advise any young woman or ethnic minority or any young man to go and work in the House, not if they value their peace of mind.
It is shocking and it simply is not good enough for Bercow to hang around. He cannot be part of the solution. And those MPs who do not see this are themselves part of the problem.
Things need to change...
Brexiteers like you are too busy reliving 'Darkest Hour' fantasies of a No Deal Brexit, while ignoring the threat to the Union and the economy from No Deal
Edit: Ha, I was looking at a few quotes from Cromwell (though I do own several large volumes with his collected words and writings) and the first one on wikiquote is one I have not seen before but which we see its like a lot in modern politics - the 'I'm leaving the country quote'
If the remonstrance had been rejected I would have sold all I had the next morning and never have seen England more, and I know there are many other modest men of the same resolution
He has never forgiven EUsceptics for being right about the ERM.
I love how you’re referring to the Tory party in the 3rd person tonight. Classic.
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1052263447335972864
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1052267260319031296
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1052268026282819584