Mr. Doethur, by 'my book' do you mean betting-wise or writing-wise?
I was referring to the weather.
I was asking about your betting book. I realised it was ambiguous after I'd typed it, but then I thought it was appropriate to cover more bases, so I left it.
It is rather gloomy. I just went to buy some milk and felt I needed a torch.
No deal is better than a bad deal, May is totally to blame. A pygmy trying to play a giant, the Tories should be banned from office for 100 years for putting that muppet in charge of the country..
No deal is better than a bad deal, May is totally to blame. A pygmy trying to play a giant, the Tories should be banned from office for 100 years for putting that muppet in charge of the country..
You misheard her, she said 'No Leave is better than No Deal'
I strongly commend Matt Chorley’s article in today’s Times for the utter evisceration of Bridgen and, by proxy, the ERGers. This line particularly stood out:
“You might keep an eye out for him in future, but that won’t be the full picture. Sometimes his quotes are attributed to a “senior Tory MP” — which means it really is total cobblers if even Bridgen won’t put his name to it.”
The possibility you have missed is the country letting out a collective scream and saying ENOUGH!
....and we slink away and try to put the country that the Tory Party have come close to destroying back together again and this madness is quietly forgotten.
The thing is, I don't see what the EU have to gain by offering further concessions. They would allow us to withdraw Article 50, with a huge sigh of relief. But we can't do that as it goes against both the referendum result and the most recent election result. At least one and probably both would ave to be superseded and there isn't time.
So what more might the EU offer? Selmayr is reported to be fixated on Northern Ireland, probably because as a German who lived through reunification he sees it as a purely administrative rather than nationalistic matter and doesn't understand the extremely dangerous implications of playing about with it for partisan gain (a bit like our lot, really). So the backstop won't be conceded.
The CJEU? Well, it only has a minor role in the withdrawal agreement, and a short term one. In fact, the agreement offers us a much better arrangement vis a visa the CJEU than we have now. Reopening it would be courageous, Minister.
The money? Forget it. That money is not going to be negotiated downwards. In fact, it's lower than what they asked for initially.
Freedom of movement? The only concessions they could realistically offer are to end it in March and to allow it for British expats post transition. The first would make the transition considerably more painful for all concerned, and the second is to put it mildly a minor matter for most opponents of the deal.
Customs union? But we're probably not going to stay in that, looking at this, when the final deal is agreed.
So - really, what more can they offer? Nothing. This is a much, much better deal than I was expecting and in many ways is a superior deal to remain. It isn't the finished product but it is a good start.
If Labour think they can do better, then it really is time to call the psychiatric nurses in.
"It's an absolute fucking mess, and it's totally the fault of hate-filled Europhobic winnets."
I think if you look into this with an unbiased view, you'll discover it was one Cameron D who thought up the idea of a referendum, and it was this same Cameron D who ordered the CS not to do any preparation work on one of the possible results. When the result went the 'wrong way' it was this Cameron who fucked off immediately like the 'great statesman ' he was, handing over the reins to one May T, a Remainer.
You could have also blamed one Blair A, who refused to bring in transition controls on immigration and one Brown G who sidestepped a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, these two both being Remainers.
Yes, it's all the fault of those pesky voters, we'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for them.
Great piece. I could quibble and list allsorts of other variables that could tip things in a more Remain direction but it would be nit picking. The path of least resistance is still at time of writing a deal though it will be bloody. Bloodshed unlike the politics since the 70's.
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
"It's an absolute fucking mess, and it's totally the fault of hate-filled Europhobic winnets."
I think if you look into this with an unbiased view, you'll discover it was one Cameron D who thought up the idea of a referendum, and it was this same Cameron D who ordered the CS not to do any preparation work on one of the possible results. When the result went the 'wrong way' it was this Cameron who fucked off immediately like the 'great statesman ' he was, handing over the reins to one May T, a Remainer.
You could have also blamed one Blair A, who refused to bring in transition controls on immigration and one Brown G who sidestepped a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, these two both being Remainers.
Yes, it's all the fault of those pesky voters, we'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for them.
"I think if you look into this with an unbiased view, you'll discover it was one Cameron D who thought up the idea of a referendum,"
If you look at it in reality, you'll see that it was the winnets who had been calling for a referendum on EU membership for years, if not decades. Cameron did not think up the idea of a referendum, but he did bend to the inevitable.
And sadly a referendum was inevitable. The rabid bleatings of the winnets (that's actually a poor phrase as the other end of the animal bleats, but I'll let it stand) was poisoning our politics and society.
One of the glorious things about this site over the last few days is the way the Europhobes have been bending over backwards to absolve themselves of any blame for this mess, and to try to blame anyone - everyone - else.
It's pathetic, and shows exactly the same sort of attitude that got us into this mess. It's always someone else's fault in their mind ...
"Brussels, needing a deal to be signed off in order to protect the Irish, might offer quid pro quo amendments, which could be enough for the Commons to vote it through at a second time of asking. That’s now the best-case scenario."
Glad we agree on this, David. Something has to change to avoid No Deal. May refusing to even try - and putting in a Brexit Minister with instructions not to even try - is a dereliction of duty.
Ann Widdecombe was just on R5. She says the May deal is dead. No way it passes the House.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge..
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
Great piece. I could quibble and list allsorts of other variables that could tip things in a more Remain direction but it would be nit picking. The path of least resistance is still at time of writing a deal though it will be bloody. Bloodshed unlike the politics since the 70's.
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
It's not the ERG or the DUP that are the problem. We always knew they would vote against it.
What's causing the problem is that Labour are saying they will vote against as well for no very good reason except naked partisan advantage, oblivious to the political, economics and social consequences.
That is where the very real risk of no deal arises.
MPs support Remain by a majority of 5 to 1. They ignore the referendum. Hartlepool Stoke and Jaywick demand independence which is immediately granted by Royal decree and the rest of us live happily ever after.....
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge..
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
If it's any consolation I met a man in Berlin last year who thought we'd already left as well.
"It's an absolute fucking mess, and it's totally the fault of hate-filled Europhobic winnets."
I think if you look into this with an unbiased view, you'll discover it was one Cameron D who thought up the idea of a referendum, and it was this same Cameron D who ordered the CS not to do any preparation work on one of the possible results. When the result went the 'wrong way' it was this Cameron who fucked off immediately like the 'great statesman ' he was, handing over the reins to one May T, a Remainer.
You could have also blamed one Blair A, who refused to bring in transition controls on immigration and one Brown G who sidestepped a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, these two both being Remainers.
Yes, it's all the fault of those pesky voters, we'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for them.
"I think if you look into this with an unbiased view, you'll discover it was one Cameron D who thought up the idea of a referendum,"
If you look at it in reality, you'll see that it was the winnets who had been calling for a referendum on EU membership for years, if not decades. Cameron did not think up the idea of a referendum, but he did bend to the inevitable.
And sadly a referendum was inevitable. The rabid bleatings of the winnets (that's actually a poor phrase as the other end of the animal bleats, but I'll let it stand) was poisoning our politics and society.
One of the glorious things about this site over the last few days is the way the Europhobes have been bending over backwards to absolve themselves of any blame for this mess, and to try to blame anyone - everyone - else.
It's pathetic, and shows exactly the same sort of attitude that got us into this mess. It's always someone else's fault in their mind ...
And yet again, forty years of Europhiles sneaking us into an ever more-impossible-to-leave EU without taking any respnsibility I see....
It wasn't the actions of the Europhobes that the voters were reacting against. The current mess is what happens when you try to act all paternalistic with the people. They feel massively patronised. "You little people will never see the benefits of the EU Project, so we won't even bother." A sentiment writ large through the whole Remain referendum campaign.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge.
Quite a few. My parents' gardener ("Jimmy the Gypsy") thinks the UK has already left and I encountered a taxi driver with knuckles bedecked in sovereign rings who thought May was trying to get the UK back in to the EU with the deal.
Great piece. I could quibble and list allsorts of other variables that could tip things in a more Remain direction but it would be nit picking. The path of least resistance is still at time of writing a deal though it will be bloody. Bloodshed unlike the politics since the 70's.
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
It's not the ERG or the DUP that are the problem. We always knew they would vote against it.
What's causing the problem is that Labour are saying they will vote against as well for no very good reason except naked partisan advantage, oblivious to the political, economics and social consequences.
That is where the very real risk of no deal arises.
Blame the opposition .? I watched the debate in parliament , and it was all sections of the party against the deal. Not just your hated Corbyn supporters. That should tell you something. The government and May never reached out to try to make this cross party .
MPs support Remain by a majority of 5 to 1. They ignore the referendum. Hartlepool Stoke and Jaywick demand independence which is immediately granted by Royal decree and the rest of us live happily ever after.....
52% of the United Kingdom lives in Hartlepool, Stoke and Jaywick? Who knew.....
MPs support Remain by a majority of 5 to 1. They ignore the referendum. Hartlepool Stoke and Jaywick demand independence which is immediately granted by Royal decree and the rest of us live happily ever after.....
Multi-millionaire Roger sneering at working class people in Hartlepool, Stoke and Jarrow from his mansion on the Cote D'Azur?
Great piece. I could quibble and list allsorts of other variables that could tip things in a more Remain direction but it would be nit picking. The path of least resistance is still at time of writing a deal though it will be bloody. Bloodshed unlike the politics since the 70's.
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
It's not the ERG or the DUP that are the problem. We always knew they would vote against it.
What's causing the problem is that Labour are saying they will vote against as well for no very good reason except naked partisan advantage, oblivious to the political, economics and social consequences.
That is where the very real risk of no deal arises.
Corbyn could end all Brexit uncertainty today, by saying there will be a Labour 3-line Whip to abstain on May's deal.
Incidently David's excellent piece also makes the case for voting down May's abomination of a deal. It"s precisely because that there must be a deal and almost certainly there will be a deal that no one should vote for this appalling one. If May herself is slung out early so much the better. A failed premiership and historical damning will be a lesson to others.
While she inherited the worst peacetime disaster since ??? Peel possibly she's made the most appalling series of errors, bought in to almost all the Leave campaigns lies, invested massive political capital in Canadian and been shrilly divisive. She should have gone in a dignified and structured manner at the general election fiasco. The fact she's now presented the country with a proposed architecture that's both objectively awful and will be almost Moines first choice is the final insult. If there is any justice and there often isn't in politics this will end very badly for her.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
MPs support Remain by a majority of 5 to 1. They ignore the referendum. Hartlepool Stoke and Jaywick demand independence which is immediately granted by Royal decree and the rest of us live happily ever after.....
Multi-millionaire Roger sneering at working class people in Hartlepool, Stoke and Jarrow from his mansion on the Cote D'Azur?
Great piece. I could quibble and list allsorts of other variables that could tip things in a more Remain direction but it would be nit picking. The path of least resistance is still at time of writing a deal though it will be bloody. Bloodshed unlike the politics since the 70's.
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
It's not the ERG or the DUP that are the problem. We always knew they would vote against it.
What's causing the problem is that Labour are saying they will vote against as well for no very good reason except naked partisan advantage, oblivious to the political, economics and social consequences.
That is where the very real risk of no deal arises.
Blame the opposition .? I watched the debate in parliament , and it was all sections of the party against the deal. Not just your hated Corbyn supporters. That should tell you something. The government and May never reached out to try to make this cross party .
I wasn't referring to Corbyn supporters, of whom there are even fewer than there are in the ERG. I'm taking about the PLP.
MPs support Remain by a majority of 5 to 1. They ignore the referendum. Hartlepool Stoke and Jaywick demand independence which is immediately granted by Royal decree and the rest of us live happily ever after.....
Multi-millionaire Roger sneering at working class people in Hartlepool, Stoke and Jarrow from his mansion on the Cote D'Azur?
21st century leftism: Disenfranchise the poor.
We ran the world when we disenfranchised the poor.
Honestly the country's gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge..
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
You are talking about the majority, either stupid, only interested in soaps or do not give a jot about anything political. How else could we have this bunch of useless f***wits leading the country.
Great piece. I could quibble and list allsorts of other variables that could tip things in a more Remain direction but it would be nit picking. The path of least resistance is still at time of writing a deal though it will be bloody. Bloodshed unlike the politics since the 70's.
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
It's not the ERG or the DUP that are the problem. We always knew they would vote against it.
What's causing the problem is that Labour are saying they will vote against as well for no very good reason except naked partisan advantage, oblivious to the political, economics and social consequences.
That is where the very real risk of no deal arises.
Blame the opposition .? I watched the debate in parliament , and it was all sections of the party against the deal. Not just your hated Corbyn supporters. That should tell you something. The government and May never reached out to try to make this cross party .
That may be true, but it is also likely the deal, or something very similar that Labour would agree if they were in charge. Even more so for the remainer Labour MPs absenting the possibility of remain.
Incidently David's excellent piece also makes the case for voting down May's abomination of a deal. It"s precisely because that there must be a deal and almost certainly there will be a deal that no one should vote for this appalling one. If May herself is slung out early so much the better. A failed premiership and historical damning will be a lesson to others.
While she inherited the worst peacetime disaster since ??? Peel possibly she's made the most appalling series of errors, bought in to almost all the Leave campaigns lies, invested massive political capital in Canadian and been shrilly divisive. She should have gone in a dignified and structured manner at the general election fiasco. The fact she's now presented the country with a proposed architecture that's both objectively awful and will be almost Moines first choice is the final insult. If there is any justice and there often isn't in politics this will end very badly for her.
I wouldn't have said Peel inherited a disaster in 1834 or 1841 (or 1839, although he didn't inherit). He was taking over from a third-rate paedophile with all the political skill and sophistication of a village idiot, but the situation was hardly a disaster. The worst peacetime disaster was surely 1931 although as MacDonald remained PM hat probably isn't a valid point.
Shall we say Salisbury in 1886 and leave it at that? Or we could go for Derby in 1866 or Pitt in 1783.
Labour will always vote against any deal. I've also heard this from Labour loyalists too - they are there to oppose and ....
Per Chaos Ad Triumph. Hopefully some language graduate can correct my Latin, but the worse the disaster, the bigger the change needed, and the more chance of a Corbynite Glorious Rebellion.
The thing is, I don't see what the EU have to gain by offering further concessions. They would allow us to withdraw Article 50, with a huge sigh of relief. But we can't do that as it goes against both the referendum result and the most recent election result. At least one and probably both would ave to be superseded and there isn't time.
So what more might the EU offer? Selmayr is reported to be fixated on Northern Ireland, probably because as a German who lived through reunification he sees it as a purely administrative rather than nationalistic matter and doesn't understand the extremely dangerous implications of playing about with it for partisan gain (a bit like our lot, really). So the backstop won't be conceded.
The CJEU? Well, it only has a minor role in the withdrawal agreement, and a short term one. In fact, the agreement offers us a much better arrangement vis a visa the CJEU than we have now. Reopening it would be courageous, Minister.
The money? Forget it. That money is not going to be negotiated downwards. In fact, it's lower than what they asked for initially.
Freedom of movement? The only concessions they could realistically offer are to end it in March and to allow it for British expats post transition. The first would make the transition considerably more painful for all concerned, and the second is to put it mildly a minor matter for most opponents of the deal.
Customs union? But we're probably not going to stay in that, looking at this, when the final deal is agreed.
So - really, what more can they offer? Nothing. This is a much, much better deal than I was expecting and in many ways is a superior deal to remain. It isn't the finished product but it is a good start.
If Labour think they can do better, then it really is time to call the psychiatric nurses in.
They can offer more on the backstop. The backstop as proposed should have resulted in a 'hell no' the second it was proposed and if Parliament rejects it then it doesn't matter how fixated Selmayr is. We'll see if Ireland blinks when looking down the barrel of Parliament rejecting it and heading to no deal.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge.
Quite a few. My parents' gardener ("Jimmy the Gypsy") thinks the UK has already left and I encountered a taxi driver with knuckles bedecked in sovereign rings who thought May was trying to get the UK back in to the EU with the deal.
I sense the public are finally getting angry. For the last few days it has been a major topic of conversation by people who normally have little interest. My guess is that if the shambles becomes any more acute the built in majority in parliament for Remain will exert itself and somehow get together to vote out the result of the referendum
In his first para David mentions the parliamentary pummelling saying it was mostly from her own side. Having closely watched the debate I thought the most persistent and bitter criticism came from Remainers on all sides of the house which is interesting. May had to dismiss the idea of a People Vote time after time. Luciana Berger's tirade was a good example of the hostility in the House from that quarter. Leavers will be foolish to vote down the deal because they ain't going to get anything better.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge.
Quite a few. My parents' gardener ("Jimmy the Gypsy") thinks the UK has already left and I encountered a taxi driver with knuckles bedecked in sovereign rings who thought May was trying to get the UK back in to the EU with the deal.
I sense the public are finally getting angry. For the last few days it has been a major topic of conversation by people who normally have little interest. My guess is that if the shambles becomes any more acute the built in majority in parliament for Remain will exert itself and somehow get together to vote out the result of the referendum
The thing is, I don't see what the EU have to gain by offering further concessions. They would allow us to withdraw Article 50, with a huge sigh of relief. But we can't do that as it goes against both the referendum result and the most recent election result. At least one and probably both would ave to be superseded and there isn't time.
So what more might the EU offer? Selmayr is reported to be fixated on Northern Ireland, probably because as a German who lived through reunification he sees it as a purely administrative rather than nationalistic matter and doesn't understand the extremely dangerous implications of playing about with it for partisan gain (a bit like our lot, really). So the backstop won't be conceded.
The CJEU? Well, it only has a minor role in the withdrawal agreement, and a short term one. In fact, the agreement offers us a much better arrangement vis a visa the CJEU than we have now. Reopening it would be courageous, Minister.
The money? Forget it. That money is not going to be negotiated downwards. In fact, it's lower than what they asked for initially.
Freedom of movement? The only concessions they could realistically offer are to end it in March and to allow it for British expats post transition. The first would make the transition considerably more painful for all concerned, and the second is to put it mildly a minor matter for most opponents of the deal.
Customs union? But we're probably not going to stay in that, looking at this, when the final deal is agreed.
So - really, what more can they offer? Nothing. This is a much, much better deal than I was expecting and in many ways is a superior deal to remain. It isn't the finished product but it is a good start.
If Labour think they can do better, then it really is time to call the psychiatric nurses in.
They can offer more on the backstop. The backstop as proposed should have resulted in a 'hell no' the second it was proposed and if Parliament rejects it then it doesn't matter how fixated Selmayr is. We'll see if Ireland blinks when looking down the barrel of Parliament rejecting it and heading to no deal.
They’ll call your bluff every time, and every time you try to employ it more and more people will turn against you.
I expect MPs to vote the deal knowing they are damaging Britain's prospects because it's the easy option and they don't have an immediately better option.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge.
Quite a few. My parents' gardener ("Jimmy the Gypsy") thinks the UK has already left and I encountered a taxi driver with knuckles bedecked in sovereign rings who thought May was trying to get the UK back in to the EU with the deal.
I sense the public are finally getting angry. For the last few days it has been a major topic of conversation by people who normally have little interest. My guess is that if the shambles becomes any more acute the built in majority in parliament for Remain will exert itself and somehow get together to vote out the result of the referendum
I think at least some of growing public anger/frustration/awareness is that it is about now that people start to think about booking holidays next year. But until this is sorted out they can’t.
"Brussels, needing a deal to be signed off in order to protect the Irish, might offer quid pro quo amendments, which could be enough for the Commons to vote it through at a second time of asking. That’s now the best-case scenario."
Glad we agree on this, David. Something has to change to avoid No Deal. May refusing to even try - and putting in a Brexit Minister with instructions not to even try - is a dereliction of duty.
Ann Widdecombe was just on R5. She says the May deal is dead. No way it passes the House.
Is she from down your way Mark? My grandmother managed to get her as guest speaker for her St Marychurch garden parties, back in the day.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
That's a very astute observation. Does anyone now know what the deal is and what part of it so many find repulsive? I don't and David's excellent header for all it's length doesnt either
The most likely outcome is the Commons votes down the Deal at its first time of asking, the £ and FTSE plunge in a Black Wednesday, 2008 style collapse and the Commons then just about votes it through as Tories bar ERG diehards switch to it to avoid economic apocalypse and a few more Labour MPs do.
This is the most Brexity Deal the EU will consider, they will only reopen negotiations if offered permanent Customs Union and/or permanent Single Market membership from the UK. That requires a Labour government. It is also possible May could propose a No Deal v Remain referendum if her Deal is voted down a second time, hence she is now suggesting No Brexit at all is possible.
The DUP might abstain in a no confidence vote if they do not get assurances from Corbyn he will keep Northern Ireland on exactly the same terms as GB even if they vote against May's Deal
This explains everything, why Brexit and the ERG are so epically wrong on so much and why Brexit is such a clusterfuck.
Steve Baker was Chief Architect, Global Financing and Asset Servicing Platforms, Lehman Brothers, London — 2006-2008
Instrumental in forming the strategy and design for the global financing programme, supporting the multi-million dollar securities lending business. Also central to determining the strategy for the critical function of maintaining, and controlling the risk associated with, many billions of dollars of assets under management.
I wonder if - assuming Parliament rejects the deal and we go back again - the EU will want this over enough to just say no Article 50 extension, just leave. While we are not ready for WTO terms they are probably able to cope.
The thing is, I don't see what the EU have to gain by offering further concessions. They would allow us to withdraw Article 50, with a huge sigh of relief. But we can't do that as it goes against both the referendum result and the most recent election result. At least one and probably both would ave to be superseded and there isn't time.
So what more might the EU offer? Selmayr is reported to be fixated on Northern Ireland, probably because as a German who lived through reunification he sees it as a purely administrative rather than nationalistic matter and doesn't understand the extremely dangerous implications of playing about with it for partisan gain (a bit like our lot, really). So the backstop won't be conceded.
The CJEU? Well, it only has a minor role in the withdrawal agreement, and a short term one. In fact, the agreement offers us a much better arrangement vis a visa the CJEU than we have now. Reopening it would be courageous, Minister.
The money? Forget it. That money is not going to be negotiated downwards. In fact, it's lower than what they asked for initially.
Freedom of movement? The only concessions they could realistically offer are to end it in March and to allow it for British expats post transition. The first would make the transition considerably more painful for all concerned, and the second is to put it mildly a minor matter for most opponents of the deal.
Customs union? But we're probably not going to stay in that, looking at this, when the final deal is agreed.
So - really, what more can they offer? Nothing. This is a much, much better deal than I was expecting and in many ways is a superior deal to remain. It isn't the finished product but it is a good start.
If Labour think they can do better, then it really is time to call the psychiatric nurses in.
They can offer more on the backstop. The backstop as proposed should have resulted in a 'hell no' the second it was proposed and if Parliament rejects it then it doesn't matter how fixated Selmayr is. We'll see if Ireland blinks when looking down the barrel of Parliament rejecting it and heading to no deal.
Ireland and the EU won't blink, we will as it is us facing economic disaster most of all if No Deal
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge..
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
A woman I overheard in a queue was saying she was going to vote for Theresa May because she liked her. She was under the impression she was a Labour prime minister who had taken over from Tony Blair. It was a bit of a ramble, but it sounded very much like she was unaware of anything that had happened in politics since 1997.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
That's a very astute observation. Does anyone now know what the deal is and what part of it so many find repulsive? I don't and David's excellent header for all it's length doesnt either
Brexit, premised on taking back control will see Britain having far less say over the things thatt matter than it did before. Informed Remainers knew that from the start. Leavers are just finding it out.
Is Michael Gove happy with the Daily Telegraph calling him the leader of a cabinet "gang of five" who are all members of the ERG? When previously I said the ERG had 7 known members in the cabinet, I was forgetting about Andrea Leadsom. The correct figure is 8. How long can the governing coalition last?
The ground beneath the feet of those who maintain that being publicly known to be seeking to renegotiate a draft agreement is compatible with supporting it and sharing responsibility for it - as required by the principles of British cabinet government - is becoming ever thinner.
Good header David. But I take issue with one sentence:
"And even if it [parliament] could [force an Act for a second referendum], polling probably means that whatever won would have no stronger mandate than what we have now."
It clearly would have a stronger mandate:
a) it would be have been taken with better knowledge of what it means in practice
b) it would supersede the previous referendum (I hereby revoke any previous will or codicil).
If the result was as close as the last one it would have the same democratic legitimacy and the losers would be sore as before.
There is a possibility that parliament will seek to impose a higher bar (say 60%) to ensure that a reversal of the previous referendum vote is decisive. Remainers won't like that but it may be necessary to get a majority in parliament for a second referendum.
I wonder whether fleshing out the political statement about the future relationship and focusing on it much more than on the transition might help. So much of the commentary seems to assume that the transition is the final deal.
I also think - and I expect I will be criticised for this - that EU leaders need to say clearly and loudly that this is it, that they are not interested on dancing to the tunes of political parties in Britain playing games and that this deal will remain on the table until 29th March but then it’s gone. And what will happen thereafter will be not be as good since their focus will be on minimising the damage to themselves from Britain crashing out.
They should also say that if Britain wanted to remain that too is an option until 29th March.
Someone needs to bring home the reality of the situation to our thicker MPs. Much of the “let’s renegotiate” brigade are blithely assuming the EU will play ball, as if the rest of the world dances every time Britain plays a tune. And the world is no longer like that, hasn’t been for a very long time, in fact. British MPs need to get real - and fast - about the reality of Britain’s choices.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
That's a very astute observation. Does anyone now know what the deal is and what part of it so many find repulsive? I don't and David's excellent header for all it's length doesnt either
Briefly, as I understand it (no I've not read it in full, though I would if I were an MP): * It offers a watered-down version of membership - Remainers prefer membership, Leavers want some benefits * It effectively prevents separate UK trade deals for the forseeable future (Brexiteer eughhh) * It bans new state aid for industry for several years (Corbyn boo hiss) * It concedes sovereignty on when to exit the backstop (Leavers want more control, not less)
I'm coming to think that voting it down in round 1 is pretty certain - as far as I know, there is only one Labour MP who has hinted she might vote for it, and she's hedged it. But an "avoid the cliff edge" second vote is conceivable, perhaps after some token tweaks like a solemn declaration of intent.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge..
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
If it's any consolation I met a man in Berlin last year who thought we'd already left as well.
Buying bread from a man in Brussels He was six-foot-four and full of muscles I said, "do you speak-a my language?" He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich And he said I come from a land down under Where beer does flow and men chunder Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover, yeah
Yeah, except at least they believe in no deal. The dozens of non ERG people voting against who hope to renegotiate because the EU is going to be totally easy to renegotiate with, don't and are still willing for it to happen.
I don't like the ERG position but it is at least consistent.
Gove and co are a disgrace though. Utter cowards who don't support the deal but refuse to resign while persuing something which undermines any chance of persuading waverers because it shows the deal can be fixed easily. Raab had the balls and honour to quit at least, Gove and co are scum. If they believe what they say they should have gone.
I don’t see what the question on a ballot paper could be. Remain would be one option, but what’s the other (or others)?
Because the official “leaver, but anti May’s deal” position is “a better deal” (with no agreed definition of “better”). And that is not just the official position of Tory Leavers, but the official position of the Labour Party!. The only difference being that Tory leavers argue their better deal can be achieved by threatening to walk into no deal, Labour simply because they are not the Tories.
How do you put that on the ballot paper? You can’t.
Exactly. Both are being entirely dishonest about how likely what they propose is and ad a solution it cannot even be put to the people so is less viable than what is there.
The CJEU hearing on revocability of A50 is scheduled for 27/11 two days after EUCO will sign off on the deal. If the deal is voted down we may very well get a definitive ruling before a second vote. Who knows what the ECJE will say ? They could say A50 is totally and unilaterally revocabile. Huge win for Remainders and would blow the debate wide open. We could keep the status quo by sending a letter. They might say A50 is completely unrevocable ending any discussion of a second referendum. They could fudge along the lines of current council/comission thinking.
Who knows ? But the potential impact is why the government has been so desperate to block the referal from a UK Court.
This week we'll get the Supreme Court 3 Justice panel ( including Lady Hale the President ) decision on letting HMG appeal *despite* the Scottish courts refusing leave to appeal. The government has been refused a hearing and the decision is being made on the papers. Of course if the Supreme Court does stop the Scottish courts referal and thus we get no judgement on revocability it'll be a huge PR coup for the Nationalists.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
That's a very astute observation. Does anyone now know what the deal is and what part of it so many find repulsive? I don't and David's excellent header for all it's length doesnt either
Briefly, as I understand it (no I've not read it in full, though I would if I were an MP): * It offers a watered-down version of membership - Remainers prefer membership, Leavers want some benefits * It effectively prevents separate UK trade deals for the forseeable future (Brexiteer eughhh) * It bans new state aid for industry for several years (Corbyn boo hiss) * It concedes sovereignty on when to exit the backstop (Leavers want more control, not less)
I'm coming to think that voting it down in round 1 is pretty certain - as far as I know, there is only one Labour MP who has hinted she might vote for it, and she's hedged it. But an "avoid the cliff edge" second vote is conceivable, perhaps after some token tweaks like a solemn declaration of intent.
Remove the bespoke backstop with reentry. Wins all round, even for Leavers.
There is a possibility that parliament will seek to impose a higher bar (say 60%) to ensure that a reversal of the previous referendum vote is decisive.
They would be crazy to tell 59% of voters that they can't have what they want because a few years ago there wasn't a majority for it. (Similarly the 55% no confidence rule for the Con-LibDem coalition would never have been invoked in practice.)
I wonder whether fleshing out the political statement about the future relationship and focusing on it much more than on the transition might help. So much of the commentary seems to assume that the transition is the final deal.
I also think - and I expect I will be criticised for this - that EU leaders need to say clearly and loudly that this is it, that they are not interested on dancing to the tunes of political parties in Britain playing games and that this deal will remain on the table until 29th March but then it’s gone. And what will happen thereafter will be not be as good since their focus will be on minimising the damage to themselves from Britain crashing out.
They should also say that if Britain wanted to remain that too is an option until 29th March.
Someone needs to bring home the reality of the situation to our thicker MPs. Much of the “let’s renegotiate” brigade are blithely assuming the EU will play ball, as if the rest of the world dances every time Britain plays a tune. And the world is no longer like that, hasn’t been for a very long time, in fact. British MPs need to get real - and fast - about the reality of Britain’s choices.
+1
Anyone promising to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, whether McDonnell or Gove, is not facing up to reality.
The more I reflect on Gove and co the angrier I get. It's so gutless. They are directly opposing the PM while, by staying in post and not sending in letters, pretending otherwise.
It may well be possible to renegotiate some bits and they and labour are right to try, but that is not the government position and if they want to change it they should have gone. May would be brought down and someone can then try it.
Incidently David's excellent piece also makes the case for voting down May's abomination of a deal. It"s precisely because that there must be a deal and almost certainly there will be a deal that no one should vote for this appalling one. If May herself is slung out early so much the better. A failed premiership and historical damning will be a lesson to others.
While she inherited the worst peacetime disaster since ??? Peel possibly she's made the most appalling series of errors, bought in to almost all the Leave campaigns lies, invested massive political capital in Canadian and been shrilly divisive. She should have gone in a dignified and structured manner at the general election fiasco. The fact she's now presented the country with a proposed architecture that's both objectively awful and will be almost Moines first choice is the final insult. If there is any justice and there often isn't in politics this will end very badly for her.
I agree , May should have gone after losing her parties hard fought majority.
If the government had a workable majority , the country and the Conservative Party would not be going through this chaos. People might have sympathy for her and state she has great resilience. However May is a terrible leader of this country and will rightly go down as one of our worst prime mininister with no significant achievements on her record. May wanted the job after Cameron resigned , I have no sympathy for that she can resign anytime she likes .Her so called sense of duty is harming this country.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
That's a very astute observation. Does anyone now know what the deal is and what part of it so many find repulsive? I don't and David's excellent header for all it's length doesnt either
Briefly, as I understand it (no I've not read it in full, though I would if I were an MP): * It offers a watered-down version of membership - Remainers prefer membership, Leavers want some benefits * It effectively prevents separate UK trade deals for the forseeable future (Brexiteer eughhh) * It bans new state aid for industry for several years (Corbyn boo hiss) * It concedes sovereignty on when to exit the backstop (Leavers want more control, not less)
I'm coming to think that voting it down in round 1 is pretty certain - as far as I know, there is only one Labour MP who has hinted she might vote for it, and she's hedged it. But an "avoid the cliff edge" second vote is conceivable, perhaps after some token tweaks like a solemn declaration of intent.
Remove the bespoke backstop with reentry. Wins all round, even for Leavers.
How? Many people think a trade deal may not be done in two years. And why would the EU even bother to try? Of course you may take the view that the EU has no incentive to move on from the backstop, so what’s the difference. But I don’t think that’s actually true - the backstop isn’t a realistic permanent solution for either side - people stating it is and complaining that the U.K. is stuck with it doesn’t make it so.
I just spoke to one of my neighbours who doesn't seem to understand what Brexit is about. I think he thought we were already out and has no idea about the customs union and not being in it . I wonder what proportion of the UK voters have the same lack of knowledge..
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
A woman I overheard in a queue was saying she was going to vote for Theresa May because she liked her. She was under the impression she was a Labour prime minister who had taken over from Tony Blair. It was a bit of a ramble, but it sounded very much like she was unaware of anything that had happened in politics since 1997.
It was always thus! Back in the 60's I can remember a staunch Labour supporter going to vote Conservative for the first time in her life, just because she had a telephone put in to her house...I think most of us on this site can relate similar or worse tales.
Too many people in this country are unaware of the systems in place, political, legal and personal responsibility. Most have never seen or read anything about how their local council works, let alone Westminster. They have never been inside a court unless as the defendant or witness and then for maybe only 10 minutes.
This, of course, lets too many of our political and professional classes to escape scrutiny, which some on PB may think is a good or bad idea. Maybe such things should be taught in schools (Be of more use than a lot of the maths, physics and chemistry that I diligently studied, but never once in my life after, used)
"Brussels, needing a deal to be signed off in order to protect the Irish, might offer quid pro quo amendments, which could be enough for the Commons to vote it through at a second time of asking. That’s now the best-case scenario."
Glad we agree on this, David. Something has to change to avoid No Deal. May refusing to even try - and putting in a Brexit Minister with instructions not to even try - is a dereliction of duty.
Ann Widdecombe was just on R5. She says the May deal is dead. No way it passes the House.
Is she from down your way Mark? My grandmother managed to get her as guest speaker for her St Marychurch garden parties, back in the day.
The more I reflect on Gove and co the angrier I get. It's so gutless. They are directly opposing the PM while, by staying in post and not sending in letters, pretending otherwise.
It may well be possible to renegotiate some bits and they and labour are right to try, but that is not the government position and if they want to change it they should have gone. May would be brought down and someone can then try it.
Disgraceful.
Agreed. Surely there would be a level of support for Theresa May on both sides of the House if she were to undertake a night of the long knives and throw the ERGers out of the cabinet? Since the ERG already seem to view her the way the Thatcherites viewed Edward Heath, she might as well ask "Who governs?" while she's at it.
The commentariat and political talking heads were adamant that “May’s deal” couldn’t pass the HoC long before anybody even knew what was in it. It isn’t what is in the deal which guarantees or dooms its passage. It is the motives of the people who will vote it down.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
That's a very astute observation. Does anyone now know what the deal is and what part of it so many find repulsive? I don't and David's excellent header for all it's length doesnt either
Briefly, as I understand it (no I've not read it in full, though I would if I were an MP): * It offers a watered-down version of membership - Remainers prefer membership, Leavers want some benefits * It effectively prevents separate UK trade deals for the forseeable future (Brexiteer eughhh) * It bans new state aid for industry for several years (Corbyn boo hiss) * It concedes sovereignty on when to exit the backstop (Leavers want more control, not less)
I'm coming to think that voting it down in round 1 is pretty certain - as far as I know, there is only one Labour MP who has hinted she might vote for it, and she's hedged it. But an "avoid the cliff edge" second vote is conceivable, perhaps after some token tweaks like a solemn declaration of intent.
Thanks. From J R-M's reaction I'd thought it was more specfic particularly cncerning Ireland which previously no one cared less about.
The more I reflect on Gove and co the angrier I get. It's so gutless. They are directly opposing the PM while, by staying in post and not sending in letters, pretending otherwise.
It may well be possible to renegotiate some bits and they and labour are right to try, but that is not the government position and if they want to change it they should have gone. May would be brought down and someone can then try it.
Disgraceful.
Not really, you can often influence the course of events far more effectively by being inside the room.
How else could we have this bunch of useless f***wits leading the country.
Morning Malc.
There is a lot of ignorance out there but I would say FPTP does narrow down the choice a lot.
Maybe AV is the answer to all our problems?
Morning Gin, I agree our system is garbage, as we see most of the seats never change and so they can put up donkey sand they have a job for life, it is all decided by a few seats. Pathetic but fits the stupidity of the country, dumb and happy to let it continue.
Incidently David's excellent piece also makes the case for voting down May's abomination of a deal. It"s precisely because that there must be a deal and almost certainly there will be a deal that no one should vote for this appalling one. If May herself is slung out early so much the better. A failed premiership and historical damning will be a lesson to others.
While she inherited the worst peacetime disaster since ??? Peel possibly she's made the most appalling series of errors, bought in to almost all the Leave campaigns lies, invested massive political capital in Canadian and been shrilly divisive. She should have gone in a dignified and structured manner at the general election fiasco. The fact she's now presented the country with a proposed architecture that's both objectively awful and will be almost Moines first choice is the final insult. If there is any justice and there often isn't in politics this will end very badly for her.
I agree , May should have gone after losing her parties hard fought majority.
If the government had a workable majority , the country and the Conservative Party would not be going through this chaos. People might have sympathy for her and state she has great resilience. However May is a terrible leader of this country and will rightly go down as one of our worst prime mininister with no significant achievements on her record. May wanted the job after Cameron resigned , I have no sympathy for that she can resign anytime she likes .Her so called sense of duty is harming this country.
It’s debateable that the 2015 Parliament workable majority for pushing through Brexit. I think you also have to consider that post 2015 SNP held virtually every seat in Scotland. The 2017 election if nothing else restored some political balance north of Berwick, clipped the SNP’s wings, and made a post Brexit path to Sindy much less likely.
McDonnell just saying he thinks labour could re-negotiate the deal with their friends in Europe within the time scale with good will.
The man is a laughing stock
There is a good argument for Labour as they don't contain the ERG zealots (only maybe 1 or 2 MPs who would qualify as such) and Labour are altogether more happy with many parts of the EU so would happily go for a closer and/or more permanent relationship.
The more I reflect on Gove and co the angrier I get. It's so gutless. They are directly opposing the PM while, by staying in post and not sending in letters, pretending otherwise.
It may well be possible to renegotiate some bits and they and labour are right to try, but that is not the government position and if they want to change it they should have gone. May would be brought down and someone can then try it.
Disgraceful.
Agreed. Surely there would be a level of support for Theresa May on both sides of the House if she were to undertake a night of the long knives and throw the ERGers out of the cabinet? Since the ERG already seem to view her the way the Thatcherites viewed Edward Heath, she might as well ask "Who governs?" while she's at it.
Given the liars and nonenties she has had to appoint to replace the last resignations, wtf are you wittering about, who else would be stupid enough to support this useless stubborn halfwit
I don't buy the idea that markets will crash if the deal is voted down the 1st time in parliament. For an event to spook the markets it has to be a surprise. If it's expected it gets priced in.
I like Cyclefree's suggestion. The EU give the UK a take it or leave it ultimatum with the proviso that they can change their mind by 31st March. More or less the questions we'd get on a second referendum.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So the Deal’s going down. Then what?
Comments
Thank you the ERG.
It is rather gloomy. I just went to buy some milk and felt I needed a torch.
“You might keep an eye out for him in future, but that won’t be the full picture. Sometimes his quotes are attributed to a “senior Tory MP” — which means it really is total cobblers if even Bridgen won’t put his name to it.”
....and we slink away and try to put the country that the Tory Party have come close to destroying back together again and this madness is quietly forgotten.
So what more might the EU offer? Selmayr is reported to be fixated on Northern Ireland, probably because as a German who lived through reunification he sees it as a purely administrative rather than nationalistic matter and doesn't understand the extremely dangerous implications of playing about with it for partisan gain (a bit like our lot, really). So the backstop won't be conceded.
The CJEU? Well, it only has a minor role in the withdrawal agreement, and a short term one. In fact, the agreement offers us a much better arrangement vis a visa the CJEU than we have now. Reopening it would be courageous, Minister.
The money? Forget it. That money is not going to be negotiated downwards. In fact, it's lower than what they asked for initially.
Freedom of movement? The only concessions they could realistically offer are to end it in March and to allow it for British expats post transition. The first would make the transition considerably more painful for all concerned, and the second is to put it mildly a minor matter for most opponents of the deal.
Customs union? But we're probably not going to stay in that, looking at this, when the final deal is agreed.
So - really, what more can they offer? Nothing. This is a much, much better deal than I was expecting and in many ways is a superior deal to remain. It isn't the finished product but it is a good start.
If Labour think they can do better, then it really is time to call the psychiatric nurses in.
"It's an absolute fucking mess, and it's totally the fault of hate-filled Europhobic winnets."
I think if you look into this with an unbiased view, you'll discover it was one Cameron D who thought up the idea of a referendum, and it was this same Cameron D who ordered the CS not to do any preparation work on one of the possible results. When the result went the 'wrong way' it was this Cameron who fucked off immediately like the 'great statesman ' he was, handing over the reins to one May T, a Remainer.
You could have also blamed one Blair A, who refused to bring in transition controls on immigration and one Brown G who sidestepped a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, these two both being Remainers.
Yes, it's all the fault of those pesky voters, we'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for them.
In both departments they are nearly as challenged as Labour.
The Sinhalese are of course not 'cow botherers,' but I imagine some comments on certain Buddhist batsmen are now heading the way of this thread...
May's deal is the Nissan comfort letter erected into an International Treaty. We've been on this course for over two years. Coupled with the deliberate choice not to do any meaningful No Deal preparation it leads to this. The transition is also now priced in by Markets which also needs a deal. The ERG can stage all the political terrorist attacks it likes, that's for another day, but the direction of travel has been set since at least the GE result.
If you look at it in reality, you'll see that it was the winnets who had been calling for a referendum on EU membership for years, if not decades. Cameron did not think up the idea of a referendum, but he did bend to the inevitable.
And sadly a referendum was inevitable. The rabid bleatings of the winnets (that's actually a poor phrase as the other end of the animal bleats, but I'll let it stand) was poisoning our politics and society.
One of the glorious things about this site over the last few days is the way the Europhobes have been bending over backwards to absolve themselves of any blame for this mess, and to try to blame anyone - everyone - else.
It's pathetic, and shows exactly the same sort of attitude that got us into this mess. It's always someone else's fault in their mind ...
Good article but I'd quibble with one part.
If the deal is voted down May could support Remain, having proposed a referendum, in a choice between leaving without any deal and staying in.
Glad we agree on this, David. Something has to change to avoid No Deal. May refusing to even try - and putting in a Brexit Minister with instructions not to even try - is a dereliction of duty.
Ann Widdecombe was just on R5. She says the May deal is dead. No way it passes the House.
My other neighbour tells me that "she just wants them to get on with it and sort it out". A common meme one would think,.
What's causing the problem is that Labour are saying they will vote against as well for no very good reason except naked partisan advantage, oblivious to the political, economics and social consequences.
That is where the very real risk of no deal arises.
It wasn't the actions of the Europhobes that the voters were reacting against. The current mess is what happens when you try to act all paternalistic with the people. They feel massively patronised. "You little people will never see the benefits of the EU Project, so we won't even bother." A sentiment writ large through the whole Remain referendum campaign.
And still no lessons have been learnt.
I watched the debate in parliament , and it was all sections of the party against the deal.
Not just your hated Corbyn supporters.
That should tell you something.
The government and May never reached out to try to make this cross party .
While she inherited the worst peacetime disaster since ??? Peel possibly she's made the most appalling series of errors, bought in to almost all the Leave campaigns lies, invested massive political capital in Canadian and been shrilly divisive. She should have gone in a dignified and structured manner at the general election fiasco. The fact she's now presented the country with a proposed architecture that's both objectively awful and will be almost Moines first choice is the final insult. If there is any justice and there often isn't in politics this will end very badly for her.
No amount of tweaking or “renegotiation” is going to change that.
Honestly the country's gone to the dogs since we started widening the franchise.
Shall we say Salisbury in 1886 and leave it at that? Or we could go for Derby in 1866 or Pitt in 1783.
Per Chaos Ad Triumph. Hopefully some language graduate can correct my Latin, but the worse the disaster, the bigger the change needed, and the more chance of a Corbynite Glorious Rebellion.
There is a lot of ignorance out there but I would say FPTP does narrow down the choice a lot.
Maybe AV is the answer to all our problems?
The killer clause is the ability to exit the customs backstop. That's what May and the EU need to focus on.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-top-40-horrors-lurking-in-the-small-print-of-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This is the most Brexity Deal the EU will consider, they will only reopen negotiations if offered permanent Customs Union and/or permanent Single Market membership from the UK. That requires a Labour government. It is also possible May could propose a No Deal v Remain referendum if her Deal is voted down a second time, hence she is now suggesting No Brexit at all is possible.
The DUP might abstain in a no confidence vote if they do not get assurances from Corbyn he will keep Northern Ireland on exactly the same terms as GB even if they vote against May's Deal
Steve Baker was Chief Architect, Global Financing and Asset Servicing Platforms, Lehman Brothers, London — 2006-2008
Instrumental in forming the strategy and design for the global financing programme, supporting the multi-million dollar securities lending business. Also central to determining the strategy for the critical function of maintaining, and controlling the risk associated with, many billions of dollars of assets under management.
http://www.stevebaker.info/about/detailed-biography/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/17/bug-grub-sainsburys-to-stock-edible-insects-on-shelves-in-a-uk-first
The ground beneath the feet of those who maintain that being publicly known to be seeking to renegotiate a draft agreement is compatible with supporting it and sharing responsibility for it - as required by the principles of British cabinet government - is becoming ever thinner.
Has he died? Moved to Hartlepool?
"And even if it [parliament] could [force an Act for a second referendum], polling probably means that whatever won would have no stronger mandate than what we have now."
It clearly would have a stronger mandate:
a) it would be have been taken with better knowledge of what it means in practice
b) it would supersede the previous referendum (I hereby revoke any previous will or codicil).
If the result was as close as the last one it would have the same democratic legitimacy and the losers would be sore as before.
There is a possibility that parliament will seek to impose a higher bar (say 60%) to ensure that a reversal of the previous referendum vote is decisive. Remainers won't like that but it may be necessary to get a majority in parliament for a second referendum.
I wonder whether fleshing out the political statement about the future relationship and focusing on it much more than on the transition might help. So much of the commentary seems to assume that the transition is the final deal.
I also think - and I expect I will be criticised for this - that EU leaders need to say clearly and loudly that this is it, that they are not interested on dancing to the tunes of political parties in Britain playing games and that this deal will remain on the table until 29th March but then it’s gone. And what will happen thereafter will be not be as good since their focus will be on minimising the damage to themselves from Britain crashing out.
They should also say that if Britain wanted to remain that too is an option until 29th March.
Someone needs to bring home the reality of the situation to our thicker MPs. Much of the “let’s renegotiate” brigade are blithely assuming the EU will play ball, as if the rest of the world dances every time Britain plays a tune. And the world is no longer like that, hasn’t been for a very long time, in fact. British MPs need to get real - and fast - about the reality of Britain’s choices.
* It offers a watered-down version of membership - Remainers prefer membership, Leavers want some benefits
* It effectively prevents separate UK trade deals for the forseeable future (Brexiteer eughhh)
* It bans new state aid for industry for several years (Corbyn boo hiss)
* It concedes sovereignty on when to exit the backstop (Leavers want more control, not less)
I'm coming to think that voting it down in round 1 is pretty certain - as far as I know, there is only one Labour MP who has hinted she might vote for it, and she's hedged it. But an "avoid the cliff edge" second vote is conceivable, perhaps after some token tweaks like a solemn declaration of intent.
He was six-foot-four and full of muscles
I said, "do you speak-a my language?"
He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
And he said
I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover, yeah
I don't like the ERG position but it is at least consistent.
Gove and co are a disgrace though. Utter cowards who don't support the deal but refuse to resign while persuing something which undermines any chance of persuading waverers because it shows the deal can be fixed easily. Raab had the balls and honour to quit at least, Gove and co are scum. If they believe what they say they should have gone. Exactly. Both are being entirely dishonest about how likely what they propose is and ad a solution it cannot even be put to the people so is less viable than what is there.
Who knows ? But the potential impact is why the government has been so desperate to block the referal from a UK Court.
This week we'll get the Supreme Court 3 Justice panel ( including Lady Hale the President ) decision on letting HMG appeal *despite* the Scottish courts refusing leave to appeal. The government has been refused a hearing and the decision is being made on the papers. Of course if the Supreme Court does stop the Scottish courts referal and thus we get no judgement on revocability it'll be a huge PR coup for the Nationalists.
Anyone promising to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, whether McDonnell or Gove, is not facing up to reality.
It may well be possible to renegotiate some bits and they and labour are right to try, but that is not the government position and if they want to change it they should have gone. May would be brought down and someone can then try it.
Disgraceful.
If the government had a workable majority , the country and the Conservative Party would not be going through this chaos.
People might have sympathy for her and state she has great resilience.
However May is a terrible leader of this country and will rightly go down as one of our worst prime mininister with no significant achievements on her record.
May wanted the job after Cameron resigned , I have no sympathy for that she can resign anytime she likes .Her so called sense of duty is harming this country.
But what amused me was the audience participation. "Immigrants: we get the job done" got a huge cheer from the audience.
Too many people in this country are unaware of the systems in place, political, legal and personal responsibility. Most have never seen or read anything about how their local council works, let alone Westminster. They have never been inside a court unless as the defendant or witness and then for maybe only 10 minutes.
This, of course, lets too many of our political and professional classes to escape scrutiny, which some on PB may think is a good or bad idea. Maybe such things should be taught in schools (Be of more use than a lot of the maths, physics and chemistry that I diligently studied, but never once in my life after, used)
The man is a laughing stock
Provided you are listened to of course.
The timeframe looks a bit tricky though.
Speaking of fantasies (and not the tremendously well-written sort I produce), have the 48 signatures appeared yet?
I wonder if some early letter-senders are quietly withdrawing theirs.