I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
There would probably be a majority in the Commons for permanent Customs Union membership for the UK (which May would probably agree to if it were not for the ERG) and that would then be enough too for Barnier and the EU to agree the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition period. However it may need a Corbyn minority government for it to be passed which would require a general election
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
The reaction of the public will create the climate to stop it
Indeed it will. And anyone who doubts that no deal is a complete non-starter should listen to Radio 4 any questions from Friday. An NFU person was one of the panel and she said that no deal would mean something close to armageddon for agriculture - no sales to the EU for six months she said. And 35% of food supplies might be disrupted. This would be politically unsustainable.
people won't create the climate to stop it, until it actually happens. They rejected project fear once.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I agree. Just because it is stupid, doesn't mean that it won't happen. I have learnt that in life! 6
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
She has no majority.
Deal with arch-Leaver Corbyn? Really? What generous offer of support do you think he might be amenable to?
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
OK, timeline. She agrees the deal this week, it's voted on around the 18th, it fails, parliament has a gab, thinks of something else, goes back to the EU in mid December, they say no because obvious, we flail around trying to think of something, and now we're into late December and a hundred days to X-day. I don't think we can get an agreement with the European Council and European Parliament in the time remaining.
I need to point out: we cannot legislate a deal with the EU without the EU agreeing to that deal, otherwise it's pointless.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
She has no majority.
A national government would have been the way to get Brexit through - forming it in the weeks after the original vote. They could then have taken as long as they needed to work out what to do - and invoked Article 50 with an election at the end of its two years. The hardline remainers and ERG extremists would have been equally marginalised. Corbyn would have achieved one of the hard left's long term aims of getting out of the EU and could retired as the most successful politician from his part of the spectrum. May would probably have won the first post national government election.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based e
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
That sounds plausible and I want to agree with it as it seems the only way out, but the party politics remains very difficult. I don’t think the Labour leadership will be complicit in saving May’s pride by whipping a vote through the house on a motion opposed by the Government and passed with the support of Tory rebels. In fact I’m not sure they have the numbers given the number of Labour MPs who would defy the whips on a referendum motion - but even if they did, it would allow the Tories to immediately portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, and there’s no doubt that’s exactly how they would campaign at the next election, which would probably happen very soon.
So a second referendum would only happen if it was supported by the government, but passed with Labour support. If May proposes it too soon, she gets NCed but if her strategy of deciding nothing until forced works properly, she may get to a point where she can concede that another referendum is a democratic necessity and it’s too late for her opponents to risk challenging her. Probably not until early next year though.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
She has no majority.
A national government would have been the way to get Brexit through - forming it in the weeks after the original vote. They could then have taken as long as they needed to work out what to do - and invoked Article 50 with an election at the end of its two years. The hardline remainers and ERG extremists would have been equally marginalised. Corbyn would have achieved one of the hard left's long term aims of getting out of the EU and could retired as the most successful politician from his part of the spectrum. May would probably have won the first post national government election.
A perfect plan.
I have a feeling the moment has passed now.
Given corbyns history of not being able to play nice with his own party, chances of doing so with a party he has had a visceral hatred all his life over the course of several years of tricky negotiations....we aren’t talking about Cameron / clegg here.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
OK, timeline. She agrees the deal this week, it's voted on around the 18th, it fails, parliament has a gab, thinks of something else, goes back to the EU in mid December, they say no because obvious, we flail around trying to think of something, and now we're into late December and a hundred days to X-day. I don't think we can get an agreement with the European Council and European Parliament in the time remaining.
I need to point out: we cannot legislate a deal with the EU without the EU agreeing to that deal, otherwise it's pointless.
The bill I postulate, will, among other amendments, instruct the government to request of the EU an (n) month postponement of the exit from A50. The EU will only accept this if there are other amendments that break the deadlock such as a second referendum or permanent CU and SM. The EU won't accept a delay if it is simply to keep prevaricating.
Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" is a stupendous work of research, her estimate is that it was a minimum of 16-18 million dead, but the brutality of being worked to death, and the suffering of those who survived is at least the equal of the monstrosity of the holocaust. There is no moral high ground here: the fact is that the UK allied with one monster in order to beat another. So the "very well, alone" national myth needs to be reinterpreted in the light of what we now know about the crimes of Stalin. Living in one of what Tim Snyder calls "The Bloodlands", I think the UK's illusions about itself look rather threadbare. Indeed the "we won" myth has been a major contributor to the unfolding national humiliation of Brexit.
There bloody well is a moral high ground. We really shouldn't have to point it out. Hitler was a madman who was out to subjugate the world, and he came extraordinarily close to doing so. The number one priority, moral, military and practical, was to stop him. A pact with Stalin, revolting though it was, was a moral no-brainer.
As for the 'we won' myth: it's broadly true. If Britain had fallen, Hitler would have subjugated the world. Yes, by ourselves we couldn't defeat him - but in 1940, there was nothing but Britain to stop him.
Maybe 24 hrs late, but found this in the WW1 Wikipedia article:
[S]hortly after the Marne, Crown Prince Wilhelm told an American reporter; "We have lost the war. It will go on for a long time but lost it is already."[79]
It was the belief of the German high command that due to the relative size and wealth of the allies facing them, they could not fight a war on two fronts and hope to win it. That was the rationale of the Schlieffen plan and the reason for both the declaration of war on France and the unprovoked invasion of Belgium.
In this they were correct, and that is reflected in what you say.
However, in March 1918 they were back down to one front. And they came close to smashing through.
That is not to say 1914 wasn't their best chance, but it wasn't their only chance.
Going down to a single front arguably is what did for the Germans. Those men transferred in from the East had seen how insurrection and defeatism could end the war for them, having seen it work for the Russians. The mass surrenders in the 100 days were very different to earlier campaigns.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
Your proposal doesn’t avoid no deal, unless the referendum forces a choice between Remain and Theresa’s Turd. Agreeing to that would be ‘interesting’ for May’s relationship with her backbenchers.
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
That sounds plausible and I want to agree with it as it seems the only way out, but the party politics remains very difficult. I don’t think the Labour leadership will be complicit in saving May’s pride by whipping a vote through the house on a motion opposed by the Government and passed with the support of Tory rebels. In fact I’m not sure they have the numbers given the number of Labour MPs who would defy the whips on a referendum motion - but even if they did, it would allow the Tories to immediately portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, and there’s no doubt that’s exactly how they would campaign at the next election, which would probably happen very soon.
So a second referendum would only happen if it was supported by the government, but passed with Labour support. If May proposes it too soon, she gets NCed but if her strategy of deciding nothing until forced works properly, she may get to a point where she can concede that another referendum is a democratic necessity and it’s too late for her opponents to risk challenging her. Probably not until early next year though.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
She has no majority.
A national government would have been the way to get Brexit through - forming it in the weeks after the original vote. They could then have taken as long as they needed to work out what to do - and invoked Article 50 with an election at the end of its two years. The hardline remainers and ERG extremists would have been equally marginalised. Corbyn would have achieved one of the hard left's long term aims of getting out of the EU and could retired as the most successful politician from his part of the spectrum. May would probably have won the first post national government election.
A perfect plan.
I have a feeling the moment has passed now.
Not a chance Corbyn would have joined a national government with the Tories. The folk memory of 1931 still lives on the left
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
That sounds plausible and I want to agree with it as it seems the only way out, but the party politics remains very difficult. I don’t think the Labour leadership will be complicit in saving May’s pride by whipping a vote through the house on a motion opposed by the Government and passed with the support of Tory rebels. In fact I’m not sure they have the numbers given the number of Labour MPs who would defy the whips on a referendum motion - but even if they did, it would allow the Tories to immediately portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, and there’s no doubt that’s exactly how they would campaign at the next election, which would probably happen very soon.
So a second referendum would only happen if it was supported by the government, but passed with Labour support. If May proposes it too soon, she gets NCed but if her strategy of deciding nothing until forced works properly, she may get to a point where she can concede that another referendum is a democratic necessity and it’s too late for her opponents to risk challenging her. Probably not until early next year though.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
Still seems very risky from Labour’s perspective. Could probably get them interested in an amendment which authorises a referendum choosing betweeen ‘remain’ and ‘clearly defined departure route that is on offer’ (essentially BINO or no deal chaos), with that referendum to be held on the same day as a general election.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
Your proposal doesn’t avoid no deal, unless the referendum forces a choice between Remain and Theresa’s Turd. Agreeing to that would be ‘interesting’ for May’s relationship with her backbenchers.
Corbyn will want No Deal on the ballot too.
Why would Corbyn want no deal on the ballot? It would be disastrous for jobs.
If it is left to MPs across the house to decide what goes on the ballot paper through amendments to the bill, then I think a majority would not allow "no deal" on the ballot paper.
The government will be seen to have failed. Corbyn will be seen to have failed in his VNOC in the government. I think party discipline will break down to some extent in these exceptional circumstances.
The bill I postulate, will, among other amendments, instruct the government to request of the EU an (n) month postponement of the exit from A50. The EU will only accept this if there are other amendments that break the deadlock such as a second referendum or permanent CU and SM. The EU won't accept a delay if it is simply to keep prevaricating.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
May needs to deal with Corbyn. Labour Brexit votes in return for an election next year. It’s the only way. Either that or a national govt.
She has no majority.
Deal with arch-Leaver Corbyn? Really? What generous offer of support do you think he might be amenable to?
No idea. Corbyn has the votes May needs. What does Corbyn want? An election. So the deal is, I’ll pass your Brexit in return for an election in the new year.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
Your proposal doesn’t avoid no deal, unless the referendum forces a choice between Remain and Theresa’s Turd. Agreeing to that would be ‘interesting’ for May’s relationship with her backbenchers.
Corbyn will want No Deal on the ballot too.
Why would Corbyn want no deal on the ballot? It would be disastrous for jobs.
If it is left to MPs across the house to decide what goes on the ballot paper through amendments to the bill, then I think a majority would not allow "no deal" on the ballot paper.
The government will be seen to have failed. Corbyn will be seen to have failed in his VNOC in the government. I think party discipline will break down to some extent in these exceptional circumstances.
Corbyn wants a fundamental redistribution of power and wealth in this country. EU laws will make that more difficult.
What evidence is there that he’s motivated by jobs? He’s never had one.
Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" is a stupendous work of research, her estimate is that it was a minimum of 16-18 million dead, but the brutality of being worked to death, and the suffering of those who survived is at least the equal of the monstrosity of the holocaust. There is no moral high ground here: the fact is that the UK allied with one monster in order to beat another. So the "very well, alone" national myth needs to be reinterpreted in the light of what we now know about the crimes of Stalin. Living in one of what Tim Snyder calls "The Bloodlands", I think the UK's illusions about itself look rather threadbare. Indeed the "we won" myth has been a major contributor to the unfolding national humiliation of Brexit.
There bloody well is a moral high ground. We really shouldn't have to point it out. Hitler was a madman who was out to subjugate the world, and he came extraordinarily close to doing so. The number one priority, moral, military and practical, was to stop him. A pact with Stalin, revolting though it was, was a moral no-brainer.
As for the 'we won' myth: it's broadly true. If Britain had fallen, Hitler would have subjugated the world. Yes, by ourselves we couldn't defeat him - but in 1940, there was nothing but Britain to stop him.
Plucky little Britain with only 25% of the world's population and 30% of world's land mass behind it.
Mrs May has said, if her deal is voted down, it will be up to parliament to decide the next step, so I assume she will facilitate that with an amendable bill.
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
That sounds plausible and I want to agree with it as it seems the only way out, but the party politics remains very difficult. I don’t think the Labour leadership will be complicit in saving May’s pride by whipping a vote through the house on a motion opposed by the Government and passed with the support of Tory rebels. In fact I’m not sure they have the numbers given the number of Labour MPs who would defy the whips on a referendum motion - but even if they did, it would allow the Tories to immediately portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, and there’s no doubt that’s exactly how they would campaign at the next election, which would probably happen very soon.
So a second referendum would only happen if it was supported by the government, but passed with Labour support. If May proposes it too soon, she gets NCed but if her strategy of deciding nothing until forced works properly, she may get to a point where she can concede that another referendum is a democratic necessity and it’s too late for her opponents to risk challenging her. Probably not until early next year though.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
Still seems very risky from Labour’s perspective. Could probably get them interested in an amendment which authorises a referendum choosing betweeen ‘remain’ and ‘clearly defined departure route that is on offer’ (essentially BINO or no deal chaos), with that referendum to be held on the same day as a general election.
A GE won't be acceptable to the Tories. I don't think a second referendum is that risky for Labour. They will be seen as helping avoid a disaster caused by the government.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
No idea. Corbyn has the votes May needs. What does Corbyn want? An election. So the deal is, I’ll pass your Brexit in return for an election in the new year.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
An interesting suggestion. As a secret negotiation in a smoke-filled room in Chicago in 1965 that sort of deal might have been done, but this is 2018. How would it play out for Labour when the details were splashed all over the front pages?
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
The only plausible scenario which has a clear course to avoiding disaster is for the EU and the government to agree a deal, which is then approved in the UK parliament (and, let's not forget, in the EU parliament as well).
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
No idea. Corbyn has the votes May needs. What does Corbyn want? An election. So the deal is, I’ll pass your Brexit in return for an election in the new year.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
An interesting suggestion. As a secret negotiation in a smoke-filled room in Chicago in 1965 that sort of deal might have been done, but this is 2018. How would it play out for Labour when the details were splashed all over the front pages?
If Corbyn gets his election, he and Labour will be happy. Corbyn needs Tory votes for an early poll.
The bill I postulate, will, among other amendments, instruct the government to request of the EU an (n) month postponement of the exit from A50. The EU will only accept this if there are other amendments that break the deadlock such as a second referendum or permanent CU and SM. The EU won't accept a delay if it is simply to keep prevaricating.
If the EU says "no" to an extension, then we crash out causing grave damage to ourselves and serious damage to the EU. They don't want that. But they won't agree to an extension simply for us to continue to prevaricate. The conditions will be a significant political change and clarity.
Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" is a stupendous work of research, her estimate is that it was a minimum of 16-18 million dead, but the brutality of being worked to death, and the suffering of those who survived is at least the equal of the monstrosity of the holocaust. There is no moral high ground here: the fact is that the UK allied with one monster in order to beat another. So the "very well, alone" national myth needs to be reinterpreted in the light of what we now know about the crimes of Stalin. Living in one of what Tim Snyder calls "The Bloodlands", I think the UK's illusions about itself look rather threadbare. Indeed the "we won" myth has been a major contributor to the unfolding national humiliation of Brexit.
There bloody well is a moral high ground. We really shouldn't have to point it out. Hitler was a madman who was out to subjugate the world, and he came extraordinarily close to doing so. The number one priority, moral, military and practical, was to stop him. A pact with Stalin, revolting though it was, was a moral no-brainer.
As for the 'we won' myth: it's broadly true. If Britain had fallen, Hitler would have subjugated the world. Yes, by ourselves we couldn't defeat him - but in 1940, there was nothing but Britain to stop him.
Plucky little Britain with only 25% of the world's population and 30% of world's land mass behind it.
Unfortunately that was of very limited help at the time, what with most of it being thousands of miles away and all that.
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Because the EU is insisting that there is no get out clause for the UK to invoke, only they decide. Also they want to chuck in LFP and fishing rights for perpetuity.
The bill I postulate, will, among other amendments, instruct the government to request of the EU an (n) month postponement of the exit from A50. The EU will only accept this if there are other amendments that break the deadlock such as a second referendum or permanent CU and SM. The EU won't accept a delay if it is simply to keep prevaricating.
If the EU says "no" to an extension, then we crash out causing grave damage to ourselves and serious damage to the EU. They don't want that. But they won't agree to an extension simply for us to continue to prevaricate. The conditions will be a significant political change and clarity.
Grave? The death of the UK economy. My, my you have it bad.
No idea. Corbyn has the votes May needs. What does Corbyn want? An election. So the deal is, I’ll pass your Brexit in return for an election in the new year.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
An interesting suggestion. As a secret negotiation in a smoke-filled room in Chicago in 1965 that sort of deal might have been done, but this is 2018. How would it play out for Labour when the details were splashed all over the front pages?
If Corbyn gets his election, he and Labour will be happy. Corbyn needs Tory votes for an early poll.
It would be an amusing election campaign. Don't you think his largely Remain-supporting, Tory-hating voters might be a tad miffed that he'd done a deal with the evil Tories to shaft their hopes of reversing the 2016 People's Vote?
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Because the EU is insisting that there is no get out clause for the UK to invoke, only they decide. Also they want to chuck in LFP and fishing rights for perpetuity.
LFP?
Yes, I’m talking about a permanent CU. That’s clearly the middle ground and would be okay with most of the population.
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Because the EU is insisting that there is no get out clause for the UK to invoke, only they decide. Also they want to chuck in LFP and fishing rights for perpetuity.
LFP?
Yes, I’m talking about a permanent CU. That’s clearly the middle ground and would be okay with most of the population.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
The only plausible scenario which has a clear course to avoiding disaster is for the EU and the government to agree a deal, which is then approved in the UK parliament (and, let's not forget, in the EU parliament as well).
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
I agree. But I was proposing a plausible scenario that avoids disaster in the event of no deal, either because no deal is agreed with the EU or it is voted down in parliament.
It will indeed be outside the control of the government. The separate things will need to be agreed in a lengthy sitting of parliament with a series of amendments, with much backstairs conversations and negotiations. It won't be easy or guaranteed but it is not impossible.
A crash out is not inevitable if the deal is voted down.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
The only plausible scenario which has a clear course to avoiding disaster is for the EU and the government to agree a deal, which is then approved in the UK parliament (and, let's not forget, in the EU parliament as well).
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
I agree. But I was proposing a plausible scenario that avoids disaster in the event of no deal, either because no deal is agreed with the EU or it is voted down in parliament.
It will indeed be outside the control of the government. The separate things will need to be agreed in a lengthy sitting of parliament with a series of amendments, with much backstairs conversations and negotiations. It won't be easy or guaranteed but it is not impossible.
A crash out is not inevitable if the deal is voted down.
Parliament can't decide this - it's a negotiation. It needs someone to trade compromises and threats with our EU friends. Parliament can't impose a settlement on 27 EU countries.
No idea. Corbyn has the votes May needs. What does Corbyn want? An election. So the deal is, I’ll pass your Brexit in return for an election in the new year.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
An interesting suggestion. As a secret negotiation in a smoke-filled room in Chicago in 1965 that sort of deal might have been done, but this is 2018. How would it play out for Labour when the details were splashed all over the front pages?
If Corbyn gets his election, he and Labour will be happy. Corbyn needs Tory votes for an early poll.
It would be an amusing election campaign. Don't you think his largely Remain-supporting, Tory-hating voters might be a tad miffed that he'd done a deal with the evil Tories to shaft their hopes of reversing the 2016 People's Vote?
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Because the EU is insisting that there is no get out clause for the UK to invoke, only they decide. Also they want to chuck in LFP and fishing rights for perpetuity.
LFP?
Yes, I’m talking about a permanent CU. That’s clearly the middle ground and would be okay with most of the population.
Apols, LPF, :level playing field. i.e we accept every EU reg in all areas with no say for ever.
The bill I postulate, will, among other amendments, instruct the government to request of the EU an (n) month postponement of the exit from A50. The EU will only accept this if there are other amendments that break the deadlock such as a second referendum or permanent CU and SM. The EU won't accept a delay if it is simply to keep prevaricating.
If the EU says "no" to an extension, then we crash out causing grave damage to ourselves and serious damage to the EU. They don't want that. But they won't agree to an extension simply for us to continue to prevaricate. The conditions will be a significant political change and clarity.
Grave? The death of the UK economy. My, my you have it bad.
No idea. Corbyn has the votes May needs. What does Corbyn want? An election. So the deal is, I’ll pass your Brexit in return for an election in the new year.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
An interesting suggestion. As a secret negotiation in a smoke-filled room in Chicago in 1965 that sort of deal might have been done, but this is 2018. How would it play out for Labour when the details were splashed all over the front pages?
If Corbyn gets his election, he and Labour will be happy. Corbyn needs Tory votes for an early poll.
Why would he trust May to keep her word? We already saw duplicitous she and the whips are during the meaningful vote vote
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Because the EU is insisting that there is no get out clause for the UK to invoke, only they decide. Also they want to chuck in LFP and fishing rights for perpetuity.
LFP?
Yes, I’m talking about a permanent CU. That’s clearly the middle ground and would be okay with most of the population.
But not with the EU. Do keep up.
That’s just it. I’m struggling to ‘keep up’. As Turkey is in a CU, presumably there is a deal to be done around that system?
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
Because the EU is insisting that there is no get out clause for the UK to invoke, only they decide. Also they want to chuck in LFP and fishing rights for perpetuity.
LFP?
Yes, I’m talking about a permanent CU. That’s clearly the middle ground and would be okay with most of the population.
But not with the EU. Do keep up.
That’s just it. I’m struggling to ‘keep up’. As Turkey is in a CU, presumably there is a deal to be done around that system?
Afraid not. The EU is now extremely reluctant to concede a basic customs union of the type Turkey has. They’d much rather have the deal the EU has with Ukraine, where they are forced to copy EU regulations on other matters other than those strictly related to the trade of goods. Similarly, the EU would not consider offering us the Swiss option of over 100 bilateral treaties.
They now expect neighbours that wish to have a close trading relationship to accept their place in the EU’s sphere of influence, a la Imperial China or the USA. They have learnt from their early mistakes.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
The only plausible scenario which has a clear course to avoiding disaster is for the EU and the government to agree a deal, which is then approved in the UK parliament (and, let's not forget, in the EU parliament as well).
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
I agree. But I was proposing a plausible scenario that avoids disaster in the event of no deal, either because no deal is agreed with the EU or it is voted down in parliament.
It will indeed be outside the control of the government. The separate things will need to be agreed in a lengthy sitting of parliament with a series of amendments, with much backstairs conversations and negotiations. It won't be easy or guaranteed but it is not impossible.
A crash out is not inevitable if the deal is voted down.
Parliament can't decide this - it's a negotiation. It needs someone to trade compromises and threats with our EU friends. Parliament can't impose a settlement on 27 EU countries.
Parliament can decide what is proposed to the EU. The bill would instruct the government. Parliament knows what is acceptable to the EU and what is not. A second referendum would be. Remaining permanently in the CU/SM as a rule taker would be. Complex cake and eat it technical solutions are not.
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
The only plausible scenario which has a clear course to avoiding disaster is for the EU and the government to agree a deal, which is then approved in the UK parliament (and, let's not forget, in the EU parliament as well).
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
I agree. But I was proposing a plausible scenario that avoids disaster in the event of no deal, either because no deal is agreed with the EU or it is voted down in parliament.
It will indeed be outside the control of the government. The separate things will need to be agreed in a lengthy sitting of parliament with a series of amendments, with much backstairs conversations and negotiations. It won't be easy or guaranteed but it is not impossible.
A crash out is not inevitable if the deal is voted down.
Parliament can't decide this - it's a negotiation. It needs someone to trade compromises and threats with our EU friends. Parliament can't impose a settlement on 27 EU countries.
Parliament can decide what is proposed to the EU. The bill would instruct the government. Parliament knows what is acceptable to the EU and what is not. A second referendum would be. Remaining permanently in the CU/SM as a rule taker would be. Complex cake and eat it technical solutions are not.
Does it? Given that it hasn't been involved in the negotiations I find that hard to believe.
Anne Applebaum's "Gulag" is a stupendous work of research, her estimate is that it was a minimum of 16-18 million dead, but the brutality of being worked to death, and the suffering of those who survived is at least the equal of the monstrosity of the holocaust. There is no moral high ground here: the fact is that the UK allied with one monster in order to beat another. So the "very well, alone" national myth needs to be reinterpreted in the light of what we now know about the crimes of Stalin. Living in one of what Tim Snyder calls "The Bloodlands", I think the UK's illusions about itself look rather threadbare. Indeed the "we won" myth has been a major contributor to the unfolding national humiliation of Brexit.
There bloody well is a moral high ground. We really shouldn't have to point it out. Hitler was a madman who was out to subjugate the world, and he came extraordinarily close to doing so. The number one priority, moral, military and practical, was to stop him. A pact with Stalin, revolting though it was, was a moral no-brainer.
As for the 'we won' myth: it's broadly true. If Britain had fallen, Hitler would have subjugated the world. Yes, by ourselves we couldn't defeat him - but in 1940, there was nothing but Britain to stop him.
Plucky little Britain with only 25% of the world's population and 30% of world's land mass behind it.
Unfortunately that was of very limited help at the time, what with most of it being thousands of miles away and all that.
But the war was also thousands of miles away, with Burma, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand being menaced by Japan.
Before WW2, the word "British" referred to a tribe spread across the globe. After WW2, it increasingly came to be synonymous with the United Kingdom alone. This is a usually unnoticed effect of WW2, but no less real for all that.
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn will not do a deal with the Tories under any circumstances. I wonder if this is what will finally split Labour.
Wasn't there a story recently that Corbyn was considering voting for May's deal, and his inner circle had to talk him out of it? I think it's the hardline Remainers in his party who are most likely to vote against- it's the only possible route to a second referendum. See Blair's article in the Guardian recently, for example. I'm not sure where you see the split being
Possibly. But if the Tories portray Labour as the party that stole Brexit, they are appealing to a minority. Labour can portray itself as the party that rescued the UK from disaster which will appeal to a majority.
That argument would be stronger if they hadn't spent the last two years saying Brexit must happen.
Agreed. But can you come up with a more plausible scenario that avoids a disaster?
The only plausible scenario which has a clear course to avoiding disaster is for the EU and the government to agree a deal, which is then approved in the UK parliament (and, let's not forget, in the EU parliament as well).
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
I agree. But I was proposing a plausible scenario that avoids disaster in the event of no deal, either because no deal is agreed with the EU or it is voted down in parliament.
It will indeed be outside the control of the government. The separate things will need to be agreed in a lengthy sitting of parliament with a series of amendments, with much backstairs conversations and negotiations. It won't be easy or guaranteed but it is not impossible.
A crash out is not inevitable if the deal is voted down.
Parliament can't decide this - it's a negotiation. It needs someone to trade compromises and threats with our EU friends. Parliament can't impose a settlement on 27 EU countries.
Parliament can decide what is proposed to the EU. The bill would instruct the government. Parliament knows what is acceptable to the EU and what is not. A second referendum would be. Remaining permanently in the CU/SM as a rule taker would be. Complex cake and eat it technical solutions are not.
Does it? Given that it hasn't been involved in the negotiations I find that hard to believe.
Barnier has been quite clear on what is acceptable. It is in the public domain. This would not be a negotiation. It would be a capitulation to avoid a major disaster. Parliament would need to choose between the three models that are acceptable to the EU (Remain via a second referendum but not guaranteed, Norway plus SM, Canada minus NI).
Corbyn will not do a deal with the Tories under any circumstances. I wonder if this is what will finally split Labour.
Not so. He wants Brexit. He gave May her last election. He has cover for this.
A deal with the Tories that delivered Brexit would be immensely difficult to sell. It may be the one thing that splits Corbyn from his followers. It would certainly lead to a huge rebellion, at a minimum, inside the PLP.
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn and his gang believe they will win the election.
Corbyn will not do a deal with the Tories under any circumstances. I wonder if this is what will finally split Labour.
Not so. He wants Brexit. He gave May her last election. He has cover for this.
A deal with the Tories that delivered Brexit would be immensely difficult to sell. It may be the one thing that splits Corbyn from his followers. It would certainly lead to a huge rebellion, at a minimum, inside the PLP.
If he gets his election he will be fine. They will be in loyalty mode, getting ready for power.
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn and his gang believe they will win the election.
They'll only win an election if they can keep the support of those who hate Brexit, or if they can manage to make it about something other than Brexit. In the scenario you describe, I can't see how they could do either.
I still cannot for the life of me think why CU UK wide won’t work. It satisfies the Duppers and is Labour policy in any case (so Lab can hardly oppose it). Would sail through. Deal done, and we get on with our lives?
The EU doesn’t (or didn’t) like it. Cherry picking I believe.
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn and his gang believe they will win the election.
They'll only win an election if they can keep the support of those who hate Brexit, or if they can manage to make it about something other than Brexit. In the scenario you describe, I can't see how they could do either.
If they win some concessions on workers rights they will have their fig leaf. They amended the Tory Brexit and now have the chance to finish the job. Remember Corbyn wants Brexit.
Corbyn will not do a deal with the Tories under any circumstances. I wonder if this is what will finally split Labour.
Not so. He wants Brexit. He gave May her last election. He has cover for this.
A deal with the Tories that delivered Brexit would be immensely difficult to sell. It may be the one thing that splits Corbyn from his followers. It would certainly lead to a huge rebellion, at a minimum, inside the PLP.
A deal with the Tories to deliver Brexit is a complete non-starter. More than 90% of Labour members are committed remainers. And so is the bulk of the PLP. There is no way Corbyn could deliver such a deal, and in any case I do not think he would seek to try.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I think the answer is that Mrs May, or her successor, asks the EU for an extension. I think that is an increasingly likely scenario.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I think the answer is that Mrs May, or her successor, asks the EU for an extension. I think that is an increasingly likely scenario.
The question then is what she has to offer to get agreement - ‘please can I have another year because i need more road to kick this can along’ is unlikely to meet with much sympathy.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I think the answer is that Mrs May, or her successor, asks the EU for an extension. I think that is an increasingly likely scenario.
Good point. Should we consider betting on the departure date?
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn and his gang believe they will win the election.
They'll only win an election if they can keep the support of those who hate Brexit, or if they can manage to make it about something other than Brexit. In the scenario you describe, I can't see how they could do either.
I think the calculation is that come next April we'll enter a new political scenario, where Brexit is a fait accompli and people will (a) hate the Tories for making a mess of it and (b) start focusing again on policy areas where Labour are ahead. In the meantime thery're more concerned about holding the party together than anything else.
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn and his gang believe they will win the election.
In the aftermath of governmental and Brexit collapse, then they may well be correct. Certainly it is their best chance.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I think the answer is that Mrs May, or her successor, asks the EU for an extension. I think that is an increasingly likely scenario.
The question then is what she has to offer to get agreement - ‘please can I have another year because i need more road to kick this can along’ is unlikely to meet with much sympathy.
Yes, there needs to be a reason for an extension. More time to argue amongst the cabinet simply won't wash.
If the deal has a workers rights dimension he will be able to sell it. He has been a statesman,respected the mandate and now has a chance to deliver his manifesto. Blah, blah, blah.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
I can see some upsides for the Tories (although party unity is not entirely perfect at the moment, to put it mildly), but not really for Labour. Getting an election which you then badly lose is not an attractive deal.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
Corbyn and his gang believe they will win the election.
In the aftermath of governmental and Brexit collapse, then they may well be correct. Certainly it is their best chance.
Yes, it probably is in the short term (I think their chances are excellent if an election happens on schedule). But to take such a cynical approach to Brexit for such a chance shows pretty well that Corbyn and co really are no different to the political cliques they and their followers used to have such disdain for.
Corbyn will not do a deal with the Tories under any circumstances. I wonder if this is what will finally split Labour.
Why would it? Corbyn wants Labour in power, his opponents want Labour in power, they might moan about all manner of things, very seriously and genuinely, but as an outside I see nothing of substance that suggests Labour would actually split over anything. A few people drift away, to be sure, but it seems pretty clear that even most of his most stern internal opponents will gripe but ultimately back what the party does.
The bottom line is that May does not have the votes. Not even close now. She will have to do a deal with someone that does.
That means Corbyn.
I agree with you she does not have the votes, and that it does not even look close - Lab rebels won't vote en masse (if any at all), Tory rebels of both leave and remain variety are increasing, and the DUP aren't going to back it either from the sounds of it.
But I don't see how it follows she will have to deal with someone. Or rather than she has any chance of doing it.
Labour backing, or a significant portion of it at any rate, has gone from probably necessary to definitely necessary, and frankly it would have been nice all around if Brexit had not also been tied up in partisan party politics but that is life and no one even tried, but there's still no reason for Labour to do so it seems. The remainer inclined ones see the possibility of full remain, and there aren't enough leaver ones. I just don't see how Corbyn, who is more flexible than people credit him for, cuts a deal, even if it includes, say, a May election. The one thing that seems to unite most of Labour is that they do not want, in any way, to appear to share responsibility with the government on this.
The bottom line is that May does not have the votes. Not even close now. She will have to do a deal with someone that does.
That means Corbyn.
If Corbyn does a deal with May over Brexit my membership card I have proudly held for many many years will be torn up, along with thousands of others. I reckon there are no more than 20% hard line Corbyn brexiteers.
The bottom line is that May does not have the votes. Not even close now. She will have to do a deal with someone that does.
That means Corbyn.
May does not have a deal so whether or not she has the votes is academic at the moment. But i find it inconceivable that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell could contemplate saving a Tory government from its own backbenchers.
Pathetic stuff. It truly is incomprehensible that agreement was not reached within the Cabinet on just how far they would be willing to go in specific scenarios a long long time ago, such that they still argue every step of the way. I almost pity the regular Tory MPs who don't feel strongly about the options and want to be loyal and have a Tory government, but have no idea whatsoever about what they will be called upon to defend.
But as was noted a long time ago, the idea the deal could be passed when, even if it do secure Cabinet backing, it only barely did, is just ridiculous.
The bottom line is that May does not have the votes. Not even close now. She will have to do a deal with someone that does.
That means Corbyn.
May does not have a deal so whether or not she has the votes is academic at the moment. But i find it inconceivable that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell could contemplate saving a Tory government from its own backbenchers.
It will never happen. I don't care how much people say they want Brexit, or if they are implying they still think we should Brexit - it's just part of the general strategy to be all things to all people, and after years in the job even Corbyn has learned that if he wants to be PM, he needs to do whatever it takes - they will say they think we should and then change position. If that means sacrificing Brexit, I have zero doubt he would do so even if it makes some of his future plans trickier. And especially when he can do what comes naturally and vote down a Tory government to do it as well.
Personally, I think if there was a snap election now, neither Labour nor the Tories would come up with anything clearer in terms of Brexit policies.
Labour would just say "we think we should leave, but not in a Tory way, we'll do it in a nicer way"
The Tories would just say "if you vote for us this time, then Europe will realise we're REALLY serious about leaving, then they'll come to the table and agree to our demands"
And I also think both parties would get away with that kind of waffle since, frankly, I sense Joe Public can't get their heads round any of the debates about customs unions, regulations, trade deals, Northern Ireland borders, and all the rest of it. Just like the last supposed "Brexit election" in 2017, this election would once again be decided on issues like the NHS, taxes, strengths and weaknesses of the party leaders, since those are all issue that the public understands (or think they understand).
Personally, I think if there was a snap election now, neither Labour nor the Tories would come up with anything clear in terms of Brexit policies.
Labour would just say "we think we should leave, but not in a Tory way, we'll do it in a nicer way"
The Tories would just say "if you vote for us this time, then Europe will realise we're REALLY serious about leaving, then they'll come to the table and agree to our demands"
Yes, that seems plausible. Labour would still not want to totally alienate leavers after all, and that kind of message won them most of the remain votes last time. So it would not be clear, but after what would have to be a government collapse if not outright Tory split, it might be enough next time.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I think the answer is that Mrs May, or her successor, asks the EU for an extension. I think that is an increasingly likely scenario.
Why the hell would the EU agree to any extension?
"Er, so that the UK can get its shit together and make a proper fist of the negotiations..."
To which they reply, "Fuck off - we have you by the balls, why should we relax our grip?"
And I also think both parties would get away with that kind of waffle since, frankly, I sense Joe Public can't get their heads round any of the debates about customs unions, regulations, trade deals, Northern Ireland borders, and all the rest of it. Just like the last supposed "Brexit election" in 2017, this election would once again be decided on issues like the NHS, taxes, strengths and weaknesses of the party leaders, since those are all issue that the public understands (or think they understand).
Heck, I cannot get my head around all of it, and I spend way too much time dwelling on political minutiae. So as you say it comes down to strengths and weakness of the parties and the party leaders. Corbyn's weaknesses remain the same as they ever were, May is considerably weaker than she was, as are the Tories despite impressive poll ratings (but they will have at least 1 less vote than last time from me for a start), or some new leader would be a crapshoot.
I just don't see how a GE benefits the nation for quite some time though.
I don’t have a subscription to read it in full, but unless he changes tack considerably after the initial paragraph teased in the Telegraph article, it seems that Boris has reached a whole new level of disapproval of May’s approach to Brexit. Has anyone read enough of it to get an idea of how his suggested cabinet mutiny (rather than the more conventional leadership challenge) is meant to work?
His whole piece is based on the fact that when we were full members of the EU we could leave via article 50 and the choice was the UK's to make. The deal May is bringing back is that the UK will sign up to customs union and regulation and they do trade deals, etc and we can not decide to leave. Only the EU can decide if we can leave this deal.
We can walk out and no deal the EU as Boris wants but fortunately the Country does not take kindly to trashing our manufacturing jobs and breaking up the union
I'm having difficulty in seeing how "no deal" will not happen. There is no majority in the house to pass any kind of deal, and people are losing themselves in fantasies (another deal, a second referendum, Sinn Fein taking their seats). Without a majority to push something thru, "no deal" will happen by default.
Or to put it another way: we have jumped out of the plane, nobody can agree how to build a parachute, and the ground is coming up remarkably fast.
I think the answer is that Mrs May, or her successor, asks the EU for an extension. I think that is an increasingly likely scenario.
Why the hell would the EU agree to any extension?
"Er, so that the UK can get its shit together and make a proper fist of the negotiations..."
To which they reply, "Fuck off - we have you by the balls, why should we relax our grip?"
Well, quite. More than that though, there's little reason to assume a delay leads to a significantly clearer UK position. The Tories are not going to be able to get their shit together if they have not before now, and frankly should split because if you disagree fundamentally on the damage, or not, of some of these options which the party then chooses then it is serious enough to suggest the party is not for you any longer, this is not some minor disagreement. Labour might get their shit a little more together, but hardly united, and there's little to indicate they will be in a dominant enough position to hammer through some option to negotiation with the EU either.
Personally, I think if there was a snap election now, neither Labour nor the Tories would come up with anything clearer in terms of Brexit policies.
Labour would just say "we think we should leave, but not in a Tory way, we'll do it in a nicer way"
The Tories would just say "if you vote for us this time, then Europe will realise we're REALLY serious about leaving, then they'll come to the table and agree to our demands"
And I also think both parties would get away with that kind of waffle since, frankly, I sense Joe Public can't get their heads round any of the debates about customs unions, regulations, trade deals, Northern Ireland borders, and all the rest of it. Just like the last supposed "Brexit election" in 2017, this election would once again be decided on issues like the NHS, taxes, strengths and weaknesses of the party leaders, since those are all issue that the public understands (or think they understand).
Yes, brexit was barely mentioned on the doorsteps in 2017. Labour will fight on NHS, economy etc again.
Comments
There may be a majority for a second referendum, though I suspect that Labour will first try their luck with a VONC in the government (which they will lose) and then support a second referendum, the terms of which will be decided by MPs votes on various amendments to the enabling bill. An actionable plan, backed by legislation, will result that avoids a no deal.
people won't create the climate to stop it, until it actually happens.
They rejected project fear once.
6
I need to point out: we cannot legislate a deal with the EU without the EU agreeing to that deal, otherwise it's pointless.
A perfect plan.
I have a feeling the moment has passed now.
So a second referendum would only happen if it was supported by the government, but passed with Labour support. If May proposes it too soon, she gets NCed but if her strategy of deciding nothing until forced works properly, she may get to a point where she can concede that another referendum is a democratic necessity and it’s too late for her opponents to risk challenging her. Probably not until early next year though.
As for the 'we won' myth: it's broadly true. If Britain had fallen, Hitler would have subjugated the world. Yes, by ourselves we couldn't defeat him - but in 1940, there was nothing but Britain to stop him.
Corbyn will want No Deal on the ballot too.
If it is left to MPs across the house to decide what goes on the ballot paper through amendments to the bill, then I think a majority would not allow "no deal" on the ballot paper.
The government will be seen to have failed. Corbyn will be seen to have failed in his VNOC in the government. I think party discipline will break down to some extent in these exceptional circumstances.
Not my bag, but can’t see that May has an alternative.
What evidence is there that he’s motivated by jobs? He’s never had one.
That's not to say that other routes are totally impossible, but they all require a sequence of separate things to happen each of which is problematic and outside the control of the government.
Buy the above made in the UK.
Yes, I’m talking about a permanent CU. That’s clearly the middle ground and would be okay with most of the population.
It will indeed be outside the control of the government. The separate things will need to be agreed in a lengthy sitting of parliament with a series of amendments, with much backstairs conversations and negotiations. It won't be easy or guaranteed but it is not impossible.
A crash out is not inevitable if the deal is voted down.
But yes, both parties go into the election a bit broken.
One of upsides of this approach for the Tories is that it buys them time to find a new leader and paper of the cracks sufficiently to enter an election campaign.
They now expect neighbours that wish to have a close trading relationship to accept their place in the EU’s sphere of influence, a la Imperial China or the USA. They have learnt from their early mistakes.
Parliament knows what is acceptable to the EU and what is not. A second referendum would be. Remaining permanently in the CU/SM as a rule taker would be. Complex cake and eat it technical solutions are not.
Before WW2, the word "British" referred to a tribe spread across the globe. After WW2, it increasingly came to be synonymous with the United Kingdom alone. This is a usually unnoticed effect of WW2, but no less real for all that.
In purely party-political terms, I think Labour is right to prevaricate and obfuscate; the last thing it wants is to take a strong position. The best possible scenario for Labour would be to be able to vote against any deal but to lose the vote; that way they could say that they were amenable to a deal, but not to this rotten Tory deal, thus satisfying all sides of their coalition. The calculation is trickier if they look like defeating the government. Until recently I thought they'd be able to get away with abstaining ("We don't like this deal and would have done much better if we'd been in power, but we won't vote against because the alternative is chaos"). But those hoping to reverse the referendum result now think they have a real chance, which makes it harder for Labour to avoid a decision.
That means Corbyn.
Harrowing but incredibly moving - highly recommended.
But I don't see how it follows she will have to deal with someone. Or rather than she has any chance of doing it.
Labour backing, or a significant portion of it at any rate, has gone from probably necessary to definitely necessary, and frankly it would have been nice all around if Brexit had not also been tied up in partisan party politics but that is life and no one even tried, but there's still no reason for Labour to do so it seems. The remainer inclined ones see the possibility of full remain, and there aren't enough leaver ones. I just don't see how Corbyn, who is more flexible than people credit him for, cuts a deal, even if it includes, say, a May election. The one thing that seems to unite most of Labour is that they do not want, in any way, to appear to share responsibility with the government on this.
But as was noted a long time ago, the idea the deal could be passed when, even if it do secure Cabinet backing, it only barely did, is just ridiculous. It will never happen. I don't care how much people say they want Brexit, or if they are implying they still think we should Brexit - it's just part of the general strategy to be all things to all people, and after years in the job even Corbyn has learned that if he wants to be PM, he needs to do whatever it takes - they will say they think we should and then change position. If that means sacrificing Brexit, I have zero doubt he would do so even if it makes some of his future plans trickier. And especially when he can do what comes naturally and vote down a Tory government to do it as well.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6377941/Labour-MP-David-Lammy-criticised-Tweet-getting-time-two-minute-silence-wrong.html
Labour would just say "we think we should leave, but not in a Tory way, we'll do it in a nicer way"
The Tories would just say "if you vote for us this time, then Europe will realise we're REALLY serious about leaving, then they'll come to the table and agree to our demands"
And I also think both parties would get away with that kind of waffle since, frankly, I sense Joe Public can't get their heads round any of the debates about customs unions, regulations, trade deals, Northern Ireland borders, and all the rest of it. Just like the last supposed "Brexit election" in 2017, this election would once again be decided on issues like the NHS, taxes, strengths and weaknesses of the party leaders, since those are all issue that the public understands (or think they understand).
"Er, so that the UK can get its shit together and make a proper fist of the negotiations..."
To which they reply, "Fuck off - we have you by the balls, why should we relax our grip?"
I just don't see how a GE benefits the nation for quite some time though.