Anecdotal - more real life leavers seem reconciled to this deal that I thought would be and far, far fewer remainers are on board. I really thought it would be the opposite. I'd estimate that around 40% of remainers back the deal and about 80% of leavers back it, from the people I know. I really thought it would be the other way around.
I don't think the polls are currently reflecting public opinion.
I came on here to post something similar. Just had an evening with friends, some of whom voted to leave and some to remain. Still some disagreements, but the common threads were (a) Admiration for Mrs May's resilience and patience, (b) A feeling that grandstanding MPs in the debate yesterday were being childish and that Theresa May is at least a grown-up, (c) A feeling that we need to move on and the deal is a basis for that.
Perhaps most of all: (d) No thanks to another referendum or an election!
OK, this is deepest true-blue Sussex, but I suspect similar sentiments are widespread.
Same at our association event this evening. Just a handful of naysayers.
But if this govt collapses in abject disarray such that an election eventuates, be prepared for a large Labour overall majority. Forget about what the polls say now.
I think at the moment things are in such a state of flux we cannot even take that for granted. May botched things last time, but between their own splits, Corbyn's ongoing weakness and a mood of hubris among his outriders, they are in serious danger of overplaying their hand and failing yet again. Look at the proposals put forward on housing and land reform. They are sheer madness. Nobody with half a brain would take them seriously, yet Labour do.
All true, but how would the Tories even begin to campaign with an iota of credibility when perhaps dozens of their own MPs (some of whom would still be candidates) had caused the fall of their own government and precipitated the third election in almost as many years? Labour would generally present a united front: I would predict a majority of at least 60 seats. And welcome Venezuela.
Nah, but most seats is quite likely. A majority of 60 would require nearly a ton of gains.
Clearly we're just being hypothetical at present, but why on earth shouldn't an opposition secure a ton of gains if their opponents implode so spectacularly. 1906? 1931? 1983? 1997?
Lab would need 385 seats, so 115 gains from present, not sure where that 115th gain would be, perhaps N Somerset?
But that would be a majority of 120!
Ok, 355 seats, still a lot of gains though.
Indeed - though they may well pick up 20 in Scotland from SNP.
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
Anyone who thinks the ERG have the 48 letters are kidding themselves. If they had the numbers they would have been on the BBC am hour ago calling on Brady to fire the gun.
I think they have the numbers, but Brady may well want to check that each is still valid.
I expect that we will hear on Monday.
Squeaking over the line is worse than talk.
Whether it is 48 or 148 matters little in terms of triggering a vote.
Then we enter uncharted waters. Voting for TM keeps her in post for a year wounded, I dont think it has been ever tried, so how it pans out has no precedent. I think it will happen, but she will win, and the Tories may need to fight GE2019 with her in post.
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
I don't see that their plan to renegotiate is that much different to Labour's. It's only ridiculous because they are pretending to be in support of May's deal and so not quitting, but the basic premise, that substantively changing the deal on offer or getting an extension to do the same, is the same and put with just as much unrealistic confidence based on nothing but assertion that the EU will do it, in effect calling several EU leaders liars.
But if this govt collapses in abject disarray such that an election eventuates, be prepared for a large Labour overall majority. Forget about what the polls say now.
I think at the moment things are in such a state of flux we cannot even take that for granted. May botched things last time, but between their own splits, Corbyn's ongoing weakness and a mood of hubris among his outriders, they are in serious danger of overplaying their hand and failing yet again. Look at the proposals put forward on housing and land reform. They are sheer madness. Nobody with half a brain would take them seriously, yet Labour do.
All true, but how would the Tories even begin to campaign with an iota of credibility when perhaps dozens of their own MPs (some of whom would still be candidates) had caused the fall of their own government and precipitated the third election in almost as many years? Labour would generally present a united front: I would predict a majority of at least 60 seats. And welcome Venezuela.
Nah, but most seats is quite likely. A majority of 60 would require nearly a ton of gains.
Clearly we're just being hypothetical at present, but why on earth shouldn't an opposition secure a ton of gains if their opponents implode so spectacularly. 1906? 1931? 1983? 1997?
Lab would need 385 seats, so 115 gains from present, not sure where that 115th gain would be, perhaps N Somerset?
But that would be a majority of 120!
Ok, 355 seats, still a lot of gains though.
Indeed - though they may well pick up 20 in Scotland from SNP.
There are others too, and hopefully some tactical gains for LDs. I think the bridge to a working Labour majority is quite difficult, but a score or so would make Lab most seats.
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
A couple of possibilities:
1. There is no room to achieve any substantive changes to the Withdrawal Agreement, but maybe there is still a smidgen of room for a cosmetic change to the Irish backstop, sufficient to sell as progress. Therefore, it could be that Gove & al are trying to save the deal, using their strong Leave credentials to do so.
2. They are focused not on the Withdrawal Agreement, but on shaping the direction of the future relationship. Since the draft political agreement on this is very broad-brush, it makes very good sense to want to influence it before it becomes more specific. Smarter Leavers such as Gove no doubt realise that this is far more important than the details of what happens over the next two years or so.
But if this govt collapses in abject disarray such that an election eventuates, be prepared for a large Labour overall majority. Forget about what the polls say now.
I think at the moment things are in such a state of flux we cannot even take that for granted. May botched things last time, but between their own splits, Corbyn's ongoing weakness and a mood of hubris among his outriders, they are in serious danger of overplaying their hand and failing yet again. Look at the proposals put forward on housing and land reform. They are sheer madness. Nobody with half a brain would take them seriously, yet Labour do.
All true, but how would the Tories even begin to campaign with an iota of credibility when perhaps dozens of their own MPs (some of whom would still be candidates) had caused the fall of their own government and precipitated the third election in almost as many years? Labour would generally present a united front: I would predict a majority of at least 60 seats. And welcome Venezuela.
Nah, but most seats is quite likely. A majority of 60 would require nearly a ton of gains.
Clearly we're just being hypothetical at present, but why on earth shouldn't an opposition secure a ton of gains if their opponents implode so spectacularly. 1906? 1931? 1983? 1997?
Lab would need 385 seats, so 115 gains from present, not sure where that 115th gain would be, perhaps N Somerset?
But that would be a majority of 120!
Ok, 355 seats, still a lot of gains though.
Indeed - though they may well pick up 20 in Scotland from SNP.
There are others too, and hopefully some tactical gains for LDs. I think the bridge to a working Labour majority is quite difficult, but a score or so would make Lab most seats.
Latest Westminster polling in Scotland showed Labour down. Was it the full 7 seats?
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
I don't see that their plan to renegotiate is that much different to Labour's. It's only ridiculous because they are pretending to be in support of May's deal and so not quitting, but the basic premise, that substantively changing the deal on offer or getting an extension to do the same, is the same and put with just as much unrealistic confidence based on nothing but assertion that the EU will do it, in effect calling several EU leaders liars.
I think it's a bit different because Labour wouldn't have the baggage of TMay's red lines, so they could potentially come up with something different and mutually advantageous.
What isn't going to work is saying to the EU, "you know those things we've been saying we want repeatedly for the last 18 months, and you kept telling us we weren't going to get, until we finally got it though our thick skulls? Well we'd like to spend another 18 months saying we want them again."
I'm also puzzled by MPs response to the deal. I'm a REMAINER/REMOANER and if a 2nd Referendum comes around I will definitely vote REMAIN. But this deal looks like a good fix under the circumstances. It has broad support here amongst the PBers I respect, on both sides of the argument.
I think part of the problem is that the cabinet still has a significant group, the "Infamous Five", who want a Harder Brexit. But also many MPs seem really out of touch with realpolitik. They are playing with fire. May has brokered a deal that the nation can live with and that moves us on and that would avoid a constitutional crisis.
On Topic - if the 48 letters are in how soon would it be announced?
Someone earlier was tweeting that a bunch of people were waiting until Monday to send in their letters, for whatever point that is supposed to have, but even if he has 48 now I would think he would wait until Monday to annouce.
But if he had them this morning would it have been announced today? I feel the narrative changed today with people saying that the number had not been reached but I thought someone said yesterday that he might wait 48 hours to confirm.
I reckon he will take 48 hours - excluding the weekend - to announce. Not that the delay will do any good....
I find it strange that the media and OGH seem to be assuming that the threshold hasn’t been reached, when maybe it has and Brady is biding his time. Maybe he is a political gambler and he is improving his position!
May is in a desperately weak position. The letters will have gone in by Monday - she will be facing a VONC by Wednesday. Meanwhile, she has effectively had Brexit taken off her by the Cabinet. Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit.
Meanwhile, micro-manager May's new Brexit Minister is not being allowed to acknowledge the current reality:
" the job has essentially been downgraded to focus on domestic preparations for the UK's departure, with Theresa May personally assuming responsibility for the remaining negotiations with the EU."
She has learned no lessons from the departure of Davis and Raab; I can see Barclay resigning by the end of next week too.
The difference is that Barclay has explicitly signed up to this role, no? Even though they must surely have been aware the PM and her team would sweep in to deal with things at the crunch, Raab and (more so) Davis do not seem to have been kept in the loop with the negotiations as much as they expected given their theoretical responsibilities.
A friend of mine suggested that the role of top Brexit minister should have gone to the PM at the start...
On Topic - if the 48 letters are in how soon would it be announced?
Someone earlier was tweeting that a bunch of people were waiting until Monday to send in their letters, for whatever point that is supposed to have, but even if he has 48 now I would think he would wait until Monday to annouce.
But if he had them this morning would it have been announced today? I feel the narrative changed today with people saying that the number had not been reached but I thought someone said yesterday that he might wait 48 hours to confirm.
I reckon he will take 48 hours - excluding the weekend - to announce. Not that the delay will do any good....
I find it strange that the media and OGH seem to be assuming that the threshold hasn’t been reached, when maybe it has and Brady is biding his time. Maybe he is a political gambler and he is improving his position!
May is in a desperately weak position. The letters will have gone in by Monday - she will be facing a VONC by Wednesday. Meanwhile, she has effectively had Brexit taken off her by the Cabinet. Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit.
Meanwhile, micro-manager May's new Brexit Minister is not being allowed to acknowledge the current reality:
" the job has essentially been downgraded to focus on domestic preparations for the UK's departure, with Theresa May personally assuming responsibility for the remaining negotiations with the EU."
She has learned no lessons from the departure of Davis and Raab; I can see Barclay resigning by the end of next week too.
The difference is that Barclay has explicitly signed up to this role, no? Even though they must surely have been aware the PM and her team would sweep in to deal with things at the crunch, Raab and (more so) Davis do not seem to have been kept in the loop with the negotiations as much as they expected given their theoretical responsibilities.
A friend of mine suggested that the role of top Brexit minister should have gone to the PM at the start...
It has been reported that right at the start when Juncker came to dinner at No 10 and the talks were leaked the next day, that Juncker asked "Who is negotiating" and May immediately said "I am."
Telegraph reporting 200 business leaders signed a letter saying vote down May's deal because it is so bad.
Well, well, it is all falling apart and where again is the Business Sec?
In the first paragraph, it misspells Jon Moulton, and calls him a venture capitalist. So, that's two errors before we even get to the bit I'd have to pay for.
Anecdotal - more real life leavers seem reconciled to this deal that I thought would be and far, far fewer remainers are on board. I really thought it would be the opposite. I'd estimate that around 40% of remainers back the deal and about 80% of leavers back it, from the people I know. I really thought it would be the other way around.
I don't think the polls are currently reflecting public opinion.
I came on here to post something similar. Just had an evening with friends, some of whom voted to leave and some to remain. Still some disagreements, but the common threads were (a) Admiration for Mrs May's resilience and patience, (b) A feeling that grandstanding MPs in the debate yesterday were being childish and that Theresa May is at least a grown-up, (c) A feeling that we need to move on and the deal is a basis for that.
Perhaps most of all: (d) No thanks to another referendum or an election!
OK, this is deepest true-blue Sussex, but I suspect similar sentiments are widespread.
Feeling among my work colleagues today was indeed respect for May's doggedness, as well as a wide feeling that Jacob Rees-Mogg was a "tit" (which surprised me, because I didn't realise he was particularly well-known yet).
Nobody had the foggiest idea what the "deal" actually entailed, though.
I'm also puzzled by MPs response to the deal. I'm a REMAINER/REMOANER and if a 2nd Referendum comes around I will definitely vote REMAIN. But this deal looks like a good fix under the circumstances. It has broad support here amongst the PBers I respect, on both sides of the argument.
I think part of the problem is that the cabinet still has a significant group, the "Infamous Five", who want a Harder Brexit. But also many MPs seem really out of touch with realpolitik. They are playing with fire. May has brokered a deal that the nation can live with and that moves us on and that would avoid a constitutional crisis.
What's not to like from where we've come from?
Trying to view it from their perspective, the biggest risk should surely be that opposing the deal opens the route to a second referendum and the end of Brexit, while the second-biggest is that supporting the deal sets us down a path-dependency resulting in what they regard as a botched post-Brexit status.
If they value Brexit so much then why would they risk the first for the sake of dealing with the second?
I don't think it's necessarily illogical, if they believe that the cumulative long-term effects of (what they regard as) a bad Brexit would negate most of the advantages, and/or that they fancy their chances of winning a second referendum if needs must. European politicians mouthing off about a European Army that Mr Clegg assures us would never ever happen, and the looming crisis in Italy, might give them more faith than the opinion polls suggest.
But perhaps most of all, if they regard the deal as politically dead - they can foresee no way to get it through the Commons given the likely number of rebels and without the DUP - then why stick up for it in its current form? That would be fighting a cause that's already lost according to this calculus. If there is anything good about the deal, then salvaging it would require renegotiation to make it palatable to the Commons. Much depends on how well they can count...
An alternative explanation is that they are simply looking for where the personal advantage lies when thinking where and when to take a stand, rather than anything high-minded.
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
Dunno but Gove ALWAYS has some scheme on the go...
Nobody had the foggiest idea what the "deal" actually entailed, though.
On this note, I have to say the media have done a pretty woeful job over the last couple of days. From what I've seen, all the reports on BBC or ITV have been dominated by the political gossip, with details of the deal (or exploration of the possible consequences of it) getting about 2 minutes at best.
I'm also puzzled by MPs response to the deal. I'm a REMAINER/REMOANER and if a 2nd Referendum comes around I will definitely vote REMAIN. But this deal looks like a good fix under the circumstances. It has broad support here amongst the PBers I respect, on both sides of the argument.
I think part of the problem is that the cabinet still has a significant group, the "Infamous Five", who want a Harder Brexit. But also many MPs seem really out of touch with realpolitik. They are playing with fire. May has brokered a deal that the nation can live with and that moves us on and that would avoid a constitutional crisis.
What's not to like from where we've come from?
Trying to view it from their perspective, the biggest risk should surely be that opposing the deal opens the route to a second referendum and the end of Brexit, while the second-biggest is that supporting the deal sets us down a path-dependency resulting in what they regard as a botched post-Brexit status.
If they value Brexit so much then why would they risk the first for the sake of dealing with the second?
I don't think it's necessarily illogical, if they believe that the cumulative long-term effects of (what they regard as) a bad Brexit would negate most of the advantages, and/or that they fancy their chances of winning a second referendum if needs must. European politicians mouthing off about a European Army that Mr Clegg assures us would never ever happen, and the looming crisis in Italy, might give them more faith than the opinion polls suggest.
But perhaps most of all, if they regard the deal as politically dead - they can foresee no way to get it through the Commons given the likely number of rebels and without the DUP - then why stick up for it in its current form? That would be fighting a cause that's already lost according to this calculus. If there is anything good about the deal, then salvaging it would require renegotiation to make it palatable to the Commons. Much depends on how well they can count...
An alternative explanation is that they are simply looking for where the personal advantage lies when thinking where and when to take a stand, rather than anything high-minded.
MBE. Thanks for your response. Good, well argued points.
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
(1)
Retain Office while attempting differentiation, in voter's eyes, from MrsMay.
Mr Fox is a special case: he is Theresa's Judas Goat.
Time to unveil (an approximation of) my next Tory leader Betfair Exchange book. I have been laying the obvious fancies for quite some time.
Most of the usual suspects -£500 Most of the less obvious and Outsiders +£3600
So I'm hoping Teresa May holds on a while longer!
I've been backing but not laying. Profit: Javid, Hunt, Hammond. Loss: anyone else. Rationale: if May goes before the election, the new leader will be Prime Minister so "no time for a novice". Boris and Davis are busted flushes; no-one trusts Gove. Known unknown: if May stays till the Tories are in opposition, then it will be time for a novice.
Kantar poll - Con 40 Lab 39 LD 8 SNP 4 Grn 3 Ukip 3 Plaid 1
If the Lib Dems can't get to double figures during the height of Brexit teetering, then it doesn't say much about their current strategy.
Who?
Oh, you know, him. Did the thing. It was on telly. You know. Whatchamacallit. There was a book. I think.
It still makes me laugh every time I see FX reports about Cable. E.g. ‘Rises on expectations of Brexit deal’, ‘Falls on fears of leadership battle’ etc
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
I don't think they hold out any hope whatsoever of changing May's mind, so that is just a pretext. They want to hold back a while longer in order to allow her to dig an even deeper hole and make her eventual demise more certain, while giving themselves cover having been seen to afford her every chance to make amends. An en bloc coordinated resignation in the face of continued and absolute intransigence would contribute to that. If a leadership contest is triggered, they might though still feel that they had no alternative but to jump at that point.
It is no real problem if the EU fails to negotiate a new trade agreement immediately upon May's removal. Meaningful negotiations on trade could only begin once Brexit has happened and the EU has given up on trying to contrive a situation where Brexit was averted. As the UK and EU will be operating to exactly the same standards in April 2019, something for the short term could be put together very quickly as a stopgap.
Kantar poll - Con 40 Lab 39 LD 8 SNP 4 Grn 3 Ukip 3 Plaid 1
If the Lib Dems can't get to double figures during the height of Brexit teetering, then it doesn't say much about their current strategy.
Who?
Oh, you know, him. Did the thing. It was on telly. You know. Whatchamacallit. There was a book. I think.
It still makes me laugh every time I see FX reports about Cable. E.g. ‘Rises on expectations of Brexit deal’, ‘Falls on fears of leadership battle’ etc
The "we demand a change of course" faction in the Cabinet is puzzling. They quite clearly won't get it from May, and if they did they wouldn't get it from the EU - the EU might consider having a discussion with a much friendlier new Government, but not with another version of the Tories.
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
I don't think they hold out any hope whatsoever of changing May's mind, so that is just a pretext. They want to hold back a while longer in order to allow her to dig an even deeper hole and make her eventual demise more certain, while giving themselves cover having been seen to afford her every chance to make amends. An en bloc coordinated resignation in the face of continued and absolute intransigence would contribute to that. If a leadership contest is triggered, they might though still feel that they had no alternative but to jump at that point.
It is no real problem if the EU fails to negotiate a new trade agreement immediately upon May's removal. Meaningful negotiations on trade could only begin once Brexit has happened and the EU has given up on trying to contrive a situation where Brexit was averted. As the UK and EU will be operating to exactly the same standards in April 2019, something for the short term could be put together very quickly as a stopgap.
So, you're saying the optimal outcome for the UK is for us to leave without a withdrawal agreement or any resolution of the various issues, and then negotiate from a position of strength?
As the UK and EU will be operating to exactly the same standards in April 2019, something for the short term could be put together very quickly as a stopgap.
You are assuming that "could happen" is the same as "will happen".
Time to unveil (an approximation of) my next Tory leader Betfair Exchange book. I have been laying the obvious fancies for quite some time.
Most of the usual suspects -£500 Most of the less obvious and Outsiders +£3600
So I'm hoping Teresa May holds on a while longer!
I've been backing but not laying. Profit: Javid, Hunt, Hammond. Loss: anyone else. Rationale: if May goes before the election, the new leader will be Prime Minister so "no time for a novice". Boris and Davis are busted flushes; no-one trusts Gove. Known unknown: if May stays till the Tories are in opposition, then it will be time for a novice.
I have Hammond on side but not to the extent of +£3.6k. Javid and Hunt are both -£500 for me, at present. If there is a VONC/leadership election I will of course seek to adjust my positions.
I don't expect May to lead the Tories into the next GE unless it is precipitated soon. I think she will seek to land some form of Brexit safely in the harbour and then resign, or state a timescale for when she will actually resign as PM.
She has demonstrated a clear sense of duty, in spades, and I think this sense of duty will extend to her intention to make way for a more electable Tory leader before the next GE. So, in my view, her successor will be one of the usual suspects if she is toppled soon. If however she survives post-Brexit but goes before the GE then the field widens, but not hugely.
"Our operations will continue uninterrupted and so it is important that you turn up for work as normal – your employment contract will be transferring to the new company and you will continue to be paid as normal,” said King, in an email to staff seen by the Guardian. “The newspapers and websites will continue to be published as usual. As I have stressed on several occasions, our business is profitable with good margins. Our debt has constrained us.”
The bondholders have agreed to inject cash into the business to reduce its debt.
King said that any staff who had shares in Johnston Press – as well as Christen Ager-Hanssen, who owns the Metro newspaper in Sweden and is the largest shareholder with a 25% stake – have lost their investments and the company will be de-listed from the stock exchange on Monday.
"Our operations will continue uninterrupted and so it is important that you turn up for work as normal – your employment contract will be transferring to the new company and you will continue to be paid as normal,” said King, in an email to staff seen by the Guardian. “The newspapers and websites will continue to be published as usual. As I have stressed on several occasions, our business is profitable with good margins. Our debt has constrained us.”
The bondholders have agreed to inject cash into the business to reduce its debt.
King said that any staff who had shares in Johnston Press – as well as Christen Ager-Hanssen, who owns the Metro newspaper in Sweden and is the largest shareholder with a 25% stake – have lost their investments and the company will be de-listed from the stock exchange on Monday.
"Our operations will continue uninterrupted and so it is important that you turn up for work as normal – your employment contract will be transferring to the new company and you will continue to be paid as normal,” said King, in an email to staff seen by the Guardian. “The newspapers and websites will continue to be published as usual. As I have stressed on several occasions, our business is profitable with good margins. Our debt has constrained us.”
The bondholders have agreed to inject cash into the business to reduce its debt.
King said that any staff who had shares in Johnston Press – as well as Christen Ager-Hanssen, who owns the Metro newspaper in Sweden and is the largest shareholder with a 25% stake – have lost their investments and the company will be de-listed from the stock exchange on Monday.
I'll be sad to see the Yorkshire post go...
With a bit of luck it won't - they say the businesses are profitable - so today its the shareholders (zero) and pension scheme members (reduced pensions) taking the hit.
'Some politicians get so embroiled in the intricacies of their argument they forget it is not about this theory or that theory, or does it make me look good? It is what is best for people going about their lives day in and day out.
They think too much about their privileged position and too little about their responsibility. The job of a prime minister is to make tough decisions which are not always black or white. I have to find a way through, what best suits everybody's needs.'
On Topic - if the 48 letters are in how soon would it be announced?
Someone earlier was tweeting that a bunch of people were waiting until Monday to send in their letters, for whatever point that is supposed to have, but even if he has 48 now I would think he would wait until Monday to annouce.
But if he had them this morning would it have been announced today? I feel the narrative changed today with people saying that the number had not been reached but I thought someone said yesterday that he might wait 48 hours to confirm.
I reckon he will take 48 hours - excluding the weekend - to announce. Not that the delay will do any good....
I find it strange that the media and OGH seem to be assuming that the threshold hasn’t been reached, when maybe it has and Brady is biding his time. Maybe he is a political gambler and he is improving his position!
May is in a desperately weak position. The letters will have gone in by Monday - she will be facing a VONC by Wednesday. Meanwhile, she has effectively had Brexit taken off her by the Cabinet. Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit.
Meanwhile, micro-manager May's new Brexit Minister is not being allowed to acknowledge the current reality:
" the job has essentially been downgraded to focus on domestic preparations for the UK's departure, with Theresa May personally assuming responsibility for the remaining negotiations with the EU."
She has learned no lessons from the departure of Davis and Raab; I can see Barclay resigning by the end of next week too.
You are getting desperate.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
The Gang of five will do a Dave C (back in 2016)....go back to EU, claim a rack of concessions (in name only) and then sell it to the masses.....they are motivated by 2 things - one keep Tories in power, and (b) hopefully one of them gets the top job. I dont rate their chances - a bit like the gang of 4 in the 1980s....doomed from the start
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
That''s the lunacy of the hardcore Brexiteers. They want something so badly they're either stupid enough to think: "If I wish it, it'll come true," or mendacious enough to think: "If I pretend to want it, I'll get my desired hard-Brexit."
Anyone saying they want to renegotiate the deal in any meaningful way (either pro or anti) is being a fool or a liar, and should be called out as such.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
That''s the lunacy of the hardcore Brexiteers. They want something so badly they're either stupid enough to think: "If I wish it, it'll come true," or mendacious enough to think: "If I pretend to want it, I'll get my desired hard-Brexit."
Anyone saying they want to renegotiate the deal in any meaningful way (either pro or anti) is being a fool or a liar, and should be called out as such.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
It does seem a bit like the ERG snatching defeat from the jaws from victory......
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Voters do indeed sometimes vote for stupid shit, and are fairly capricious. However there is a deep (and often unpleasant) underswell of Europhobia in the UK which, as seen on here, even the referendum result has not quenched.
As things currently stand, remaining will just enhance that underswell, not calm it. Sadly, IMO.
Yes, the EU get a lot from our membership, as do we (cue howls from the Europhobic). But we're gnarly, unpleasant members who only ever cause problems for the project. We've also caused them significant hassles in recent years.
Without us in, they're rid of a troublesome and quarrelsome partner who is not even part of the core project (i.e. Euro). As such, I'd expect any remain deal not to be on Cameron's terms, but fully-in, includiing the Euro. Which I personally don't want.
I just can't see why they'd bother with us - unless we proved through a referendu that the sick Europhobes had been thoroughly bested.
I might well be wrong in this conclusion, though ...
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
Are you for real - idiots like you have been saying how easy Brexit would be for more than 2 years now. Time to grow up and move on.
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
Can I just - for the thirty second time - get cross about the "role for the ECJ" objection.
- you will see that almost none of them are to do with governments being in - or not in - compliance. They are largely to do with clarification of product specifications, or what constitutes a monopoly, etc.
An agreement where we accept the guidance of the ECJ for products sold to or from the EEA is no big deal. It's completely different to the current situation where EU law affects everything.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
I hope you are right. But I'm not as optimistic as you. Simply a much larger share of our exports go to the EU than the other way around.
It is amusing to think that if he had gone to Sweden, even if he had faced charges and been convicted he would have been out by now, and would have been deported to Australia which probably wouldn't have been willing to hand him to the US.
By staying in the Ecuadorean embassy he's given himself a longer prison sentence andgiven America time to elect a hard right regime that actually does want to go after him (as a distraction from Trump's own links to Putin, in all likelihood). And he will be in the country that unhesitatingly hands over all wanted people to the US even if the grounds for doing so are less plausible than a Corbyn manifesto.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
This is the sort of sh*t you and your fellow leavers have been saying for years - it'll all be easy, there'll be no problem. Look at the quotes from the Brexiteers such as Davis before and immediately after the vote.
Sadly, they - and you - haven't seemed to notice that reality is different.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
This is the sort of sh*t you and your fellow leavers have been saying for years - it'll all be easy, there'll be no problem. Look at the quotes from the Brexiteers such as Davis before and immediately after the vote.
Sadly, they - and you - haven't seemed to notice that reality is different.
Whilst changes aren’t easy, MM is right the Ida that the deal is a fait accompli is equally absurd. If people want something different they should try.
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
Can I just - for the thirty second time - get cross about the "role for the ECJ" objection.
An agreement where we accept the guidance of the ECJ for products sold to or from the EEA is no big deal. It's completely different to the current situation where EU law affects everything.
I'm fully in agreement, but I don't think the gang of 5 have any real interest in amending the deal. I think they want it to fail but with clean hands. It's a once in a lifetime chance to leave the EU properly
The SNP want it to fail, as it delivers a once in a lifetime chance to get independence, again they need to have clean hands and not own the failure.
The Labour leadership want it to fail, all they want is power unencumbered by EU limits on what they can spend and do. Just need clean hands and make it look like a tory failure.
Who wants it to pass ? The centrist labour MPs, and sensible tories. i.e the people that don't want major constitutional change.
That's why it fails, it's a once in a lifetime chance for too many people, economic armageddon ? Well, you can't make an omelete without breaking some eggs
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
An agreement where we accept the guidance of the ECJ for products sold to or from the EEA is no big deal. It's completely different to the current situation where EU law affects everything.
One of the bizarrest arguments (among a competitive field) is the “we don’t want to be bound by the rules of a market we sell into” - of course, it’s never quite expressed like that....
Telegraph: "Michael Gove leading Cabinet 'gang of five' with plan to force Theresa May into last-minute Brexit changes"
Oh this is so going to work out..
Here's my question:
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
Whilst May is office they'll never gt to Brussels, but assuming the take power I imagine they'll have a list including, control of fishing, no role for ECJ, fixed end date to NI backstop, unilateral ability to exit.
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
Can I just - for the thirty second time - get cross about the "role for the ECJ" objection.
- you will see that almost none of them are to do with governments being in - or not in - compliance. They are largely to do with clarification of product specifications, or what constitutes a monopoly, etc.
An agreement where we accept the guidance of the ECJ for products sold to or from the EEA is no big deal. It's completely different to the current situation where EU law affects everything.
You appear to be assuming a level of rationality amongst the more extreme leavers that reality suggests isn't there?
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion
Which 5% do you disagree with and what would you be willing to concede to get the EU to change it?
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Voters do indeed sometimes vote for stupid shit, and are fairly capricious. However there is a deep (and often unpleasant) underswell of Europhobia in the UK which, as seen on here, even the referendum result has not quenched.
As things currently stand, remaining will just enhance that underswell, not calm it. Sadly, IMO.
Yes, the EU get a lot from our membership, as do we (cue howls from the Europhobic). But we're gnarly, unpleasant members who only ever cause problems for the project. We've also caused them significant hassles in recent years.
Without us in, they're rid of a troublesome and quarrelsome partner who is not even part of the core project (i.e. Euro). As such, I'd expect any remain deal not to be on Cameron's terms, but fully-in, includiing the Euro. Which I personally don't want.
I just can't see why they'd bother with us - unless we proved through a referendu that the sick Europhobes had been thoroughly bested.
I might well be wrong in this conclusion, though ...
But there's so much more. We are natural allies for the Germans, friends to the Eastern Europeans, a 'sensible' northern country to root the EU more firmly in prudent economics as a counterweight to potential Mediterranean excess, we were and are the leading champion of the single market, we have a lot of expertise to offer in areas such as science and finance, we have access to diplomatic channels into the wider English speaking world, and the quality, professionalism and integrity of the officials we send to EU institutions is very highly regarded. Yes, there's the occasional bust up (as with most members) and our public tends to elect some dodgy and disruptive MEPs. But in balance I am in no doubt they would want us to stay.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion
Which 5% do you disagree with and what would you be willing to concede to get the EU to change it?
We could ban Cadbury's and buy all our chocolate from Belgium.
Or we could offer to match in beer whatever Juncker is downing in brandy. That should keep the whole EU reasonably mellow for about five years, although it might bankrupt us.
Or we could prosecute Selmayr under hate crime laws for saying killing Yugoslavians doesn't matter much, and relieve the EU of a considerable embarrassment.
Or we could offer to STFU. That might be most popular.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion
Which 5% do you disagree with and what would you be willing to concede to get the EU to change it?
It's nothig to do with me - it's what 5% would bring the Consevative Party and the DUP round to approving a deal. Because it's very evidently not there yet.
Whilst changes aren’t easy, MM is right the Ida that the deal is a fait accompli is equally absurd. If people want something different they should try.
Leavers are engaged in the bargaining phase of the grief reaction at present. Negotiations are not going to reopen. They should just swallow the bitter pill of vassalage and then get on with the business of being beastly to foreigners.
This is Blind BINO Brexit, and they can pretend that they will reverse some of it in the final agreement when the Transition period ends. I suspect that the EU will have the whip hand there too, but delusion does not die easily.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
This is the sort of sh*t you and your fellow leavers have been saying for years - it'll all be easy, there'll be no problem. Look at the quotes from the Brexiteers such as Davis before and immediately after the vote.
Sadly, they - and you - haven't seemed to notice that reality is different.
Piss off. I'm looking to find a rational way that might save us from crash-out Brexit. Which is the reality YOU aren't facing up to. If that crash-out can be avoided by another run around - another run around the Prime Minister is just too stupidly stubborn to even try - then it is worth it.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
I hope you are right. But I'm not as optimistic as you. Simply a much larger share of our exports go to the EU than the other way around.
I never said I was optimisitc! Unlike the hand-wringing hopeless that abound here, at least I think it worth a try....
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
On the plus side for the EU they now have a reasonably good idea of what the British want when leaving the EU and the sort of tradeoffs our negotiators will make. It will make negotiations a lot easier second time around.
But there's so much more. We are natural allies for the Germans, friends to the Eastern Europeans, a 'sensible' northern country to root the EU more firmly in prudent economics as a counterweight to potential Mediterranean excess, we were and are the leading champion of the single market, we have a lot of expertise to offer in areas such as science and finance, we have access to diplomatic channels into the wider English speaking world, and the quality, professionalism and integrity of the officials we send to EU institutions is very highly regarded. Yes, there's the occasional bust up (as with most members) and our public tends to elect some dodgy and disruptive MEPs. But in balance I am in no doubt they would want us to stay.
But not at any cost.
I agree with what you say we bring the table. But as things stand, remaining will just lead them to more angst and trouble down the road - perhaps immediately - as the Europhobes get going and the screeches of 'betrayal!' ring out.
The EU wants to evolve - I don't particularly like the direction they want to evolve in, but it's what they want. This whole mess has been a massive and harmful distraction for them - as was our Europhobia before the referendum. It's delaying what they want to do and is a big distraction.
We're not a nice partner to them. For us to remain, they'd need to feel this mess is over and done with.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
Only if the 'people's vote' is conclusive. As we saw with the 2016 referendum, it's easy to get a result that is not conclusive, which is why we're in this mess.
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
Because a Barnier-delivered No Deal Brexit is a disaster for the EU. He has hopelessly misjudged this in reporting back to the 27 what the UK Govt. can deliver.
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
This is the sort of sh*t you and your fellow leavers have been saying for years - it'll all be easy, there'll be no problem. Look at the quotes from the Brexiteers such as Davis before and immediately after the vote.
Sadly, they - and you - haven't seemed to notice that reality is different.
Piss off. I'm looking to find a rational way that might save us from crash-out Brexit. Which is the reality YOU aren't facing up to. If that crash-out can be avoided by another run around - another run around the Prime Minister is just too stupidly stubborn to even try - then it is worth it.
You need to face reality, mate. The make up of the HoC is such that the choice you have is the deal or second referendum (and most likely remain).
Any deal the EU agrees the ERG will assume to be a bad one.
Exactly. They are impossible to satisfy because being dissatisfied is at the core of their being and central to their political life. The mistake May did make was to pander her rhetoric to them from the beginning, despite knowing that the only even half-credible Brexits lay in the centre. She would have been better facing them down from the beginning (but couldn't, of course, because of her one pro-Remain speech during the vote).
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
The “best outcome for the UK” is to overturn the result of the largest vote in its history?
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
Only if the 'people's vote' is conclusive. As we saw with the 2016 referendum, it's easy to get a result that is not conclusive, which is why we're in this mess.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
The “best outcome for the UK” is to overturn the result of the largest vote in its history?
You don’t foresee any downsides?
Making it the second largest vote would be a step in the right direction.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
The “best outcome for the UK” is to overturn the result of the largest vote in its history?
You don’t foresee any downsides?
A very close vote. I see fewer downsides than Chequers BINO or Crash Out No Deal.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
Only if the 'people's vote' is conclusive. As we saw with the 2016 referendum, it's easy to get a result that is not conclusive, which is why we're in this mess.
Most likely result would be 52-48 for remain.
I think it would probably be more decisive remain, but on a vastly reduced turnout - ie. many leavers would just boycott the vote.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. .
I think you are wrong. Many, many powerful people crave a no deal exit, because it's chaos brings opportunities for them.
No one wants to admit wanting a No Deal exit. Very different proposition.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
Only if the 'people's vote' is conclusive. As we saw with the 2016 referendum, it's easy to get a result that is not conclusive, which is why we're in this mess.
Most likely result would be 52-48 for remain.
That would do for now. It would stop the clock ticking.
Though possibly rejoining with our tail between our legs after the Withdrawal Agreement expires would command a bigger majority.
There is not going to be further renegotiation. Neither May nor the EU wants it, and no-one can credibly replace her in the time left to do so. It is this deal, no deal or a #peoplesvote.
A very close vote. I see fewer downsides than Chequers BINO or Crash Out No Deal.
Remain makes more sense than Crash Out which, in turn, is better than May's casserole of lies and nonsense.
I think the deal will get through the HoC. Enough Labour MPs are softcocks who are frightened of No Deal followed by Corbyn's Crisis Communism to abstain.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. .
I think you are wrong. Many, many powerful people crave a no deal exit, because it's chaos brings opportunities for them.
No one wants to admit wanting a No Deal exit. Very different proposition.
Mostly some extremely wealthy politicians and businessmen, many relatively well off pensioners who (think they) have secure incomes isolated from any economic turmoil, and expats, it would seem.
Can’t help feeling the tide turned a bit for May today. Yesterday was very rough but her enemies overshot and she proved dogged. Today her Cabinet rallied around somewhat and the 48 didn’t materialise. .The options other than her deal looked less likely and less palatable. A long way to go yet but she just might be past the worst.
The dross is sticking to her, but she is still toast, bringing back the liar Elmer Fud , promoting unknown pygmies etc. She will never get that crap deal through, it makes Cameron's vapourware look good. If only Scotland had had the bollox 4 years ago to get out of the corrupt useless union.
OT. I've just heard someone on radio saying that it's 'an absolute disgrace no one on the high st is catering for size 18's. It is a fact that obeisity is on the rise but none of the well known brands are catering for us'
A very close vote. I see fewer downsides than Chequers BINO or Crash Out No Deal.
Remain makes more sense than Crash Out which, in turn, is better than May's casserole of lies and nonsense.
I think the deal will get through the HoC. Enough Labour MPs are softcocks who are frightened of No Deal followed by Corbyn's Crisis Communism to abstain.
Yes, there may be more than a few who unexpectedly find they have to rush off for emergency dental treatment, or that their presence is required in Afghanistan, on the day of the vote.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. .
I think you are wrong. Many, many powerful people crave a no deal exit, because it's chaos brings opportunities for them.
No one wants to admit wanting a No Deal exit. Very different proposition.
I think this is right.
I also think that the basic tradeoff in May's deal is pretty popular - immigration control in return for pretty much anything that doesn't wreck the economy. May's opponents have done a very good hatchet job on a deal that's been almost undefended.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
Only if the 'people's vote' is conclusive. As we saw with the 2016 referendum, it's easy to get a result that is not conclusive, which is why we're in this mess.
Most likely result would be 52-48 for remain.
Well that's you guess. Yougov suggests that most people want a new referendum and I would suggest that 54 - 46 as the outcome of that referendum is more likely. People now know that Leavers cheated and lied.
- Britain backs this deal over no deal by 60% to 40% - Britain prefers a 2nd in/out ref to this deal by 56% to 44% - Britain prefers a 2nd in/out ref to no deal by 54% to 46%
OT. I've just heard someone on radio saying that it's 'an absolute disgrace no one on the high st is catering for size 18's. It is a fact that obeisity is on the rise but none of the well known brands are catering for us'
You couldn't make it up.
My wife has turned away several patients who would have exceeded the MTOW of the dental chairs in her practice - 130kg! The practice is thinking about importing a special fat fuck model from the USA.
OT. I've just heard someone on radio saying that it's 'an absolute disgrace no one on the high st is catering for size 18's. It is a fact that obeisity is on the rise but none of the well known brands are catering for us'
You couldn't make it up.
My wife has turned away several patients who would have exceeded the MTOW of the dental chairs in her practice - 130kg! The practice is thinking about importing a special fat fuck model from the USA.
I've been in a dentist's chair many times, and I've never had one take off yet. Is that what happens if she hits the wrong nerve?
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
There's no sign from any of the EU bigwigs or national leaders who have spoken about this, which is lots of them, that the rest of the EU is going to put up special hurdles like a *massive* referendum result before letting the British stay. They want Britain to stay in the EU because it's in the interests of their citizens and businesses who can work, study and trade in a wider area without lots of stupid bureaucracy. There's also a net budgetary contribution and an international influence contribution.
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
Quite. The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. .
I think you are wrong. Many, many powerful people crave a no deal exit, because it's chaos brings opportunities for them.
No one wants to admit wanting a No Deal exit. Very different proposition.
OK, some people make money from chaos, but I did say what was best 'for the country'.
OT. I've just heard someone on radio saying that it's 'an absolute disgrace no one on the high st is catering for size 18's. It is a fact that obeisity is on the rise but none of the well known brands are catering for us'
You couldn't make it up.
People who are obese still need clothes to wear. Not being obese isn't going to clothe them today.
Comments
So what's their game?
1. They have decided for various reasons to stay loyal to the end but need a narrative to explain to Leave supporters why they're doing it. But "we are staying in order to seek the impossible" is not really going to impress anyone, surely?
2. They plan to do their best to change course and otherwise will resign as a bloc. That would probably sink May, but it's not obvious that it would do anything for them. They still won't get toi reopen talks.
So what are they up to?
Then we enter uncharted waters. Voting for TM keeps her in post for a year wounded, I dont think it has been ever tried, so how it pans out has no precedent. I think it will happen, but she will win, and the Tories may need to fight GE2019 with her in post.
1. There is no room to achieve any substantive changes to the Withdrawal Agreement, but maybe there is still a smidgen of room for a cosmetic change to the Irish backstop, sufficient to sell as progress. Therefore, it could be that Gove & al are trying to save the deal, using their strong Leave credentials to do so.
2. They are focused not on the Withdrawal Agreement, but on shaping the direction of the future relationship. Since the draft political agreement on this is very broad-brush, it makes very good sense to want to influence it before it becomes more specific. Smarter Leavers such as Gove no doubt realise that this is far more important than the details of what happens over the next two years or so.
What isn't going to work is saying to the EU, "you know those things we've been saying we want repeatedly for the last 18 months, and you kept telling us we weren't going to get, until we finally got it though our thick skulls? Well we'd like to spend another 18 months saying we want them again."
I think part of the problem is that the cabinet still has a significant group, the "Infamous Five", who want a Harder Brexit. But also many MPs seem really out of touch with realpolitik. They are playing with fire. May has brokered a deal that the nation can live with and that moves us on and that would avoid a constitutional crisis.
What's not to like from where we've come from?
A friend of mine suggested that the role of top Brexit minister should have gone to the PM at the start...
Nobody had the foggiest idea what the "deal" actually entailed, though.
If they value Brexit so much then why would they risk the first for the sake of dealing with the second?
I don't think it's necessarily illogical, if they believe that the cumulative long-term effects of (what they regard as) a bad Brexit would negate most of the advantages, and/or that they fancy their chances of winning a second referendum if needs must. European politicians mouthing off about a European Army that Mr Clegg assures us would never ever happen, and the looming crisis in Italy, might give them more faith than the opinion polls suggest.
But perhaps most of all, if they regard the deal as politically dead - they can foresee no way to get it through the Commons given the likely number of rebels and without the DUP - then why stick up for it in its current form? That would be fighting a cause that's already lost according to this calculus. If there is anything good about the deal, then salvaging it would require renegotiation to make it palatable to the Commons. Much depends on how well they can count...
An alternative explanation is that they are simply looking for where the personal advantage lies when thinking where and when to take a stand, rather than anything high-minded.
Dunno but Gove ALWAYS has some scheme on the go...
Similarly, if UKIP don't twitch in the polls, it might relieve some pressure on a couple of Tory MPs. One less flank to cover...
Most of the usual suspects -£500
Most of the less obvious and Outsiders +£3600
So I'm hoping Teresa May holds on a while longer!
Retain Office while attempting differentiation, in voter's eyes, from MrsMay.
Mr Fox is a special case: he is Theresa's Judas Goat.
Profit: Javid, Hunt, Hammond.
Loss: anyone else.
Rationale: if May goes before the election, the new leader will be Prime Minister so "no time for a novice". Boris and Davis are busted flushes; no-one trusts Gove.
Known unknown: if May stays till the Tories are in opposition, then it will be time for a novice.
It is no real problem if the EU fails to negotiate a new trade agreement immediately upon May's removal. Meaningful negotiations on trade could only begin once Brexit has happened and the EU has given up on trying to contrive a situation where Brexit was averted. As the UK and EU will be operating to exactly the same standards in April 2019, something for the short term could be put together very quickly as a stopgap.
I don't expect May to lead the Tories into the next GE unless it is precipitated soon. I think she will seek to land some form of Brexit safely in the harbour and then resign, or state a timescale for when she will actually resign as PM.
She has demonstrated a clear sense of duty, in spades, and I think this sense of duty will extend to her intention to make way for a more electable Tory leader before the next GE. So, in my view, her successor will be one of the usual suspects if she is toppled soon. If however she survives post-Brexit but goes before the GE then the field widens, but not hugely.
My quietly fancied "outsider" is Geoffrey Cox.
Edit - looks like a pre-pack:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/16/owner-of-the-scotsman-and-i-newspapers-enters-administration?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
"Our operations will continue uninterrupted and so it is important that you turn up for work as normal – your employment contract will be transferring to the new company and you will continue to be paid as normal,” said King, in an email to staff seen by the Guardian. “The newspapers and websites will continue to be published as usual. As I have stressed on several occasions, our business is profitable with good margins. Our debt has constrained us.”
The bondholders have agreed to inject cash into the business to reduce its debt.
King said that any staff who had shares in Johnston Press – as well as Christen Ager-Hanssen, who owns the Metro newspaper in Sweden and is the largest shareholder with a 25% stake – have lost their investments and the company will be de-listed from the stock exchange on Monday.
Oh this is so going to work out..
https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1063471325082251264?s=20
What is it the "gang of five" want to change about the DWA?
I get that it's not Brexit enough for many. But when they turn up in Brussels, what are the specific changes they want?
They think too much about their privileged position and too little about their responsibility. The job of a prime minister is to make tough decisions which are not always black or white. I have to find a way through, what best suits everybody's needs.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6399409/May-reveals-came-toughest-week-thanks-rock-Philip.html
"Going back to Barnier, dismantling her deal, is the only possible way of finding a formulation that gets the Conservative Party and DUP back in line to pass any deal through the House; otherwise it gets voted down and we roll on to a disorderly No Deal Brexit."
As you well know, that's not going to happen. Why should the EU go through all this again?
They get told no, and we go to no deal and blame the Germans for being unreasonable
Anyone saying they want to renegotiate the deal in any meaningful way (either pro or anti) is being a fool or a liar, and should be called out as such.
I doubt the EU would even let us remain without us having a massive pro-remain referendum win: why should they, when they know they'll just have this problem again in a few years when the Brexiteers start slobbering again?
They also know that voters vote for stupid shit from time to time. They're not going to get gamed for negotiating advantage if Brexit is still on, but if it's off, they're not going to let the possibility that Brexit might get resurrected in 5 or 10 or 20 years deter them from ending it now.
As things currently stand, remaining will just enhance that underswell, not calm it. Sadly, IMO.
Yes, the EU get a lot from our membership, as do we (cue howls from the Europhobic). But we're gnarly, unpleasant members who only ever cause problems for the project. We've also caused them significant hassles in recent years.
Without us in, they're rid of a troublesome and quarrelsome partner who is not even part of the core project (i.e. Euro). As such, I'd expect any remain deal not to be on Cameron's terms, but fully-in, includiing the Euro. Which I personally don't want.
I just can't see why they'd bother with us - unless we proved through a referendu that the sick Europhobes had been thoroughly bested.
I might well be wrong in this conclusion, though ...
Wiser heads just might want to intervene. No guarantee of course - but a drop in GDP as they lose some/all of £39 billion and a disturbance to giant export markets is maybe a reason to pause.
95%+ of the agreement is there and wouldn't need discussion. Many of the changes they would be asked to consider could be thrashed out over a weekend summit. Maybe at Chequers?
Every year the ECJ hears hundreds and hundreds of cases. Most of these are about clarifying the rules of the EEA Single Market. So, for example, you might have a case about the definition of "mesh steel" and about what is and is not mesh steel. If you look through the complete list of cases -
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61989TJ0151
- you will see that almost none of them are to do with governments being in - or not in - compliance. They are largely to do with clarification of product specifications, or what constitutes a monopoly, etc.
An agreement where we accept the guidance of the ECJ for products sold to or from the EEA is no big deal. It's completely different to the current situation where EU law affects everything.
By staying in the Ecuadorean embassy he's given himself a longer prison sentence andgiven America time to elect a hard right regime that actually does want to go after him (as a distraction from Trump's own links to Putin, in all likelihood). And he will be in the country that unhesitatingly hands over all wanted people to the US even if the grounds for doing so are less plausible than a Corbyn manifesto.
Karma's a bitch.
Sadly, they - and you - haven't seemed to notice that reality is different.
The SNP want it to fail, as it delivers a once in a lifetime chance to get independence, again they need to have clean hands and not own the failure.
The Labour leadership want it to fail, all they want is power unencumbered by EU limits on what they can spend and do. Just need clean hands and make it look like a tory failure.
Who wants it to pass ? The centrist labour MPs, and sensible tories. i.e the people that don't want major constitutional change.
That's why it fails, it's a once in a lifetime chance for too many people, economic armageddon ?
Well, you can't make an omelete without breaking some eggs
Or we could offer to match in beer whatever Juncker is downing in brandy. That should keep the whole EU reasonably mellow for about five years, although it might bankrupt us.
Or we could prosecute Selmayr under hate crime laws for saying killing Yugoslavians doesn't matter much, and relieve the EU of a considerable embarrassment.
Or we could offer to STFU. That might be most popular.
This is Blind BINO Brexit, and they can pretend that they will reverse some of it in the final agreement when the Transition period ends. I suspect that the EU will have the whip hand there too, but delusion does not die easily.
I agree with what you say we bring the table. But as things stand, remaining will just lead them to more angst and trouble down the road - perhaps immediately - as the Europhobes get going and the screeches of 'betrayal!' ring out.
The EU wants to evolve - I don't particularly like the direction they want to evolve in, but it's what they want. This whole mess has been a massive and harmful distraction for them - as was our Europhobia before the referendum. It's delaying what they want to do and is a big distraction.
We're not a nice partner to them. For us to remain, they'd need to feel this mess is over and done with.
The best outcome for the UK is to stay in the EU, nobody wants a No Deal exit, everybody (including prominent Leavers) say that Chequers is worse than staying. But it's difficult politically because of the leadership of the Tory and Labour parties. A 'People's Vote' is a way out so come on parliament - take control.
You don’t foresee any downsides?
https://news.sky.com/story/violence-erupts-in-sri-lankan-parliament-as-countrys-pm-faces-no-confidence-motion-11555876
I see fewer downsides than Chequers BINO or Crash Out No Deal.
No one wants to admit wanting a No Deal exit. Very different proposition.
Though possibly rejoining with our tail between our legs after the Withdrawal Agreement expires would command a bigger majority.
There is not going to be further renegotiation. Neither May nor the EU wants it, and no-one can credibly replace her in the time left to do so. It is this deal, no deal or a #peoplesvote.
I think the deal will get through the HoC. Enough Labour MPs are softcocks who are frightened of No Deal followed by Corbyn's Crisis Communism to abstain.
If only Scotland had had the bollox 4 years ago to get out of the corrupt useless union.
You couldn't make it up.
I also think that the basic tradeoff in May's deal is pretty popular - immigration control in return for pretty much anything that doesn't wreck the economy. May's opponents have done a very good hatchet job on a deal that's been almost undefended.
@YouGov
- Britain backs this deal over no deal by 60% to 40%
- Britain prefers a 2nd in/out ref to this deal by 56% to 44%
- Britain prefers a 2nd in/out ref to no deal by 54% to 46%