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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
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 think it will go down slightly - perhaps a couple of hundred points. But it won't be the seven hundred point drop needed for everyone to really notice. Same with sterling, it'll drop a couple of cents but not six.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
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.
No it isn't because her party could have removed her at any time if they thought she was or is harming this country. Her sense of duty doesn't matter a flying fig, they have the power to remove her as party leader and thus in practice though not law as pm. You cannot and should not rely on opponents internal or external doing what you want. Mays path made her an opponent of many in her party and so far they still haven't even tried to bring her down. It's not a sense of duty to remain in post until removed and even if was it's irrelevant.
She's not been a good PM even considering it was not going to be easy. But she's not harming the country by not going- if there was a clear path to take which had no harm they'd have removed her. The harm exists separate to her and it's not being fixed because parliament is so split.
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.
You keep saying that but there isn't a leaver in the country who will back an agreement that defaults to re-entry.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
They've become so adept at can kicking that a hard choice like this i almost beyond many of them.
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.
Reentry is better for Leavers than the backstop in two main ways.
It’s not permanent. They could A50 and no deal There is no Ireland border issue.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
Well said. One does not need to like May at all to see that she is not really the problem right now. If she were, then the time changing leader would make a difference was a long way back.
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.
I think Cyclefree's suggestion is excellent.
It slaughters all the unicorns (Labour, ERG, DUP). And finally gets the job done so we and the EU can concentrate on other pressing matters.
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 think it will go down slightly - perhaps a couple of hundred points. But it won't be the seven hundred point drop needed for everyone to really notice. Same with sterling, it'll drop a couple of cents but not six.
The foreign exchange market did not price in the result of the referendum despite a majority of polls showing a small win for Leave.
Sometimes markets are biased towards the status quo or establishment view because they are run by people.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
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.
I agree - the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum. Labour / Remainers use it as a stick against the government. WTO Leavers pay it lip service but wouldn't really mind if we got a hard border.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
The negotiation “experts” on here would say differently.
Mr. Jezziah, no ERG zealots, though they are led by someone who thinks marching with Stalin banners is smart.
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.
Sir Graham Brady (knighted by May) is giving time for May to get her act together before announcing the contest. Will Grayling be her campaign manager again?
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 think it will go down slightly - perhaps a couple of hundred points. But it won't be the seven hundred point drop needed for everyone to really notice. Same with sterling, it'll drop a couple of cents but not six.
The foreign exchange market did not price in the result of the referendum despite a majority of polls showing a small win for Leave.
Sometimes markets are biased towards the status quo or establishment view because they are run by people.
While I want us completely out of the morass, I have been wavering because of the possibility of a red Brexit under Corbyn if May's proposed deal is voted down in the HoC. But this handy summary has put me back firmly in the No Deal camp. It really is capitulation. I would not be against a second referendum with May's three possibilities: the deal, no deal, no Brexit. Voters expressing first and second preferences, as outlined by Ross Clark.
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.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
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.
Provided you are listened to of course.
You miss the main reason I find it a disgrace. The official position is this deal is it, no change. They are openly persuing a policy contrary to that. It's the same thing labour and co are doing but they are at least not drawing ministerial salaries.
Prior to the deal being announced they could have argued what they are but not now. They don't support the deal as is but the gov does. Ergo they should quit.
They might as well appoint Reesmogg as brexit secretary - he opposes the deal but will try to convince may to change course, same as them.
It's not right. If the deal is too bad to support, fine, a majority of mps agree. Those in cabinet were stated to back 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.
I agree - the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum. Labour / Remainers use it as a stick against the government. WTO Leavers pay it lip service but wouldn't really mind if we got a hard border.
To be fair that’s not quite true - there were a reasonable number of remainders (led by Major, Blair etc) saying during the referendum that the GFA was underpinned by membership of the EU with the border a key issue. The EU didn’t include it in their 3 “key priorities” on a whim.
The Tory schism is because May's deal is about the actual Leave vote generated by the actual Leave campaign. It keeps Nissan in Leave voting Sunderland open and ends FoM. The problem is ERG sorts don't give a **** about either really. They've spent 25 years obsessing about Sovereignty and Free Trade deals incompatible with our European style social fabric.
Now if you judge May's deal by Sovereignty and ability to do Trade deals it's ****ing awful. They know if we don't leave the Customs Union now in the white heat of Brexit we'll never do it down the line. They've read the WA and know how much Norwegian style Fax Democracy it contains.
The problem is you are an ERG style Brexiter then going Nuclear over the WA is perfectly rational. It's now or never and this isn't the Brexit they spent half a lifetime on.
The defence of May's deal is curiously May both understands and cares about the nature of the Leave vote more than some folk who spent 25 years working for this. The Tory Party is split between the Dr Frankensteins and their Monster on this.
Which takes us back as ever to Dominic Cummings and his Midas touch. Able to win Brexit but only by transmuting it into some different and undeliverable.
...I'm looking to find a rational way that might save us from crash-out Brexit...
You're assuming that the MPs want a good outcome. But they are stupid/mendacious/irresponsible wealthy people who only want to get reelected. Until there is a measurable polling penalty for them fucking around they will continue to do so. That penalty has not yet materialised so they will continue in their fuckwittery until it is too late. Arguably that has already happened.
Mr. Jezziah, no ERG zealots, though they are led by someone who thinks marching with Stalin banners is smart.
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.
Sir Graham Brady (knighted by May) is giving time for May to get her act together before announcing the contest. Will Grayling be her campaign manager again?
With respect that is utter rubbish. If Graham Brady has the numbers he will inform TM and the vnoc will take place immediately. There is no campaigning and it is completed very quickly
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
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 think it will go down slightly - perhaps a couple of hundred points. But it won't be the seven hundred point drop needed for everyone to really notice. Same with sterling, it'll drop a couple of cents but not six.
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.
It will probably be the biggest crash since 2008 on the first vote, likely even more so than the Leave vote itself.
If voted down a second time it could be the biggest market crash since WW2 and the £ will also plunge further accordingly.
The markets want The Deal to pass, they just about may think Parliament may vote down the only Deal available the first time but not that it would be stupid enough to vote it down a second time too
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
The negotiation “experts” on here would say differently.
The same negotiation experts said that I was wrong when I said that the negotiations for drawing up the terms of leaving the EU might well take many years. It is just barely possible that they are mistaken again.
The Tory schism is because May's deal is about the actual Leave vote generated by the actual Leave campaign. It keeps Nissan in Leave voting Sunderland open and ends FoM. The problem is ERG sorts don't give a **** about either really. They've spent 25 years obsessing about Sovereignty and Free Trade deals incompatible with our European style social fabric.
Now if you judge May's deal by Sovereignty and ability to do Trade deals it's ****ing awful. They know if we don't leave the Customs Union now in the white heat of Brexit we'll never do it down the line. They've read the WA and know how much Norwegian style Fax Democracy it contains.
The problem is you are an ERG style Brexiter then going Nuclear over the WA is perfectly rational. It's now or never and this isn't the Brexit they spent half a lifetime on.
The defence of May's deal is curiously May both understands and cares about the nature of the Leave vote more than some folk who spent 25 years working for this. The Tory Party is split between the Dr Frankensteins and their Monster on this.
Which takes us back as ever to Dominic Cummings and his Midas touch. Able to win Brexit but only by transmuting it into some different and undeliverable.
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.
And those who are not facing up to the reality that the current deal will fall in the House are what? Facilitators of a No Deal Brexit is what...
The Tory schism is because May's deal is about the actual Leave vote generated by the actual Leave campaign. It keeps Nissan in Leave voting Sunderland open and ends FoM. The problem is ERG sorts don't give a **** about either really. They've spent 25 years obsessing about Sovereignty and Free Trade deals incompatible with our European style social fabric.
Now if you judge May's deal by Sovereignty and ability to do Trade deals it's ****ing awful. They know if we don't leave the Customs Union now in the white heat of Brexit we'll never do it down the line. They've read the WA and know how much Norwegian style Fax Democracy it contains.
The problem is you are an ERG style Brexiter then going Nuclear over the WA is perfectly rational. It's now or never and this isn't the Brexit they spent half a lifetime on.
The defence of May's deal is curiously May both understands and cares about the nature of the Leave vote more than some folk who spent 25 years working for this. The Tory Party is split between the Dr Frankensteins and their Monster on this.
Which takes us back as ever to Dominic Cummings and his Midas touch. Able to win Brexit but only by transmuting it into some different and undeliverable.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
Because it divides the four indivisable freedoms and provides us preferential market access without FOM. The risk to them is others will want the same.
While I want us completely out of the morass, I have been wavering because of the possibility of a red Brexit under Corbyn if May's proposed deal is voted down in the HoC. But this handy summary has put me back firmly in the No Deal camp. It really is capitulation. I would not be against a second referendum with May's three possibilities: the deal, no deal, no Brexit. Voters expressing first and second preferences, as outlined by Ross Clark.
I stopped reading the moment it started making false claims about the CJEU and EU law, which was no. 3 on that list.
Whoever wrote it either hasn't read the text properly or hasn't understood it properly. Either way, they are not worth reading.
I have more work to do than England's spinners. Have a good morning.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
Changing the leader is a last resort. First you try to change the policy.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
Replacing Theresa May would make a lot of sense if you plan on either Brexit with no deal (or more likely a series of mini deals) or Remain since May isn't preparing for or seeking either of those.
And while no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this that is because they think May is done for and will sign whatever deal they give her, which is the case. If they found that suddenly in charge of the UK was someone who was dead seriously preparing for no deal they might suddenly find they have the time, interest and energy afterall.
Mr. Jezziah, no ERG zealots, though they are led by someone who thinks marching with Stalin banners is smart.
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.
Sir Graham Brady (knighted by May) is giving time for May to get her act together before announcing the contest. Will Grayling be her campaign manager again?
With respect that is utter rubbish. If Graham Brady has the numbers he will inform TM and the vnoc will take place immediately. There is no campaigning and it is completed very quickly
Can anyone explain why May would go through all this if we really could get a Canada deal without a hard border in Northern Ireland and suffering significant economic damage?
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 think it will go down slightly - perhaps a couple of hundred points. But it won't be the seven hundred point drop needed for everyone to really notice. Same with sterling, it'll drop a couple of cents but not six.
Fingers crossed you are right or I am stuffed.
Sterling down 2 cents one day, then another cent the next week. The FTSE in a slow bear direction rather than the shock crash then rebound.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
Because it divides the four indivisable freedoms and provides us preferential market access without FOM. The risk to them is others will want the same.
It leaves the UK at the whim of the EU, it is the crappiest deal anyone could have thought up, 2 years to come up with that pile of crap. Dire negotiating.
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.
I agree - the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum. Labour / Remainers use it as a stick against the government. WTO Leavers pay it lip service but wouldn't really mind if we got a hard border.
To be fair that’s not quite true - there were a reasonable number of remainders (led by Major, Blair etc) saying during the referendum that the GFA was underpinned by membership of the EU with the border a key issue. The EU didn’t include it in their 3 “key priorities” on a whim.
Very true , I remember Major and Blair going to Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign. As I recall it was quite prominent in the news.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
Because it divides the four indivisable freedoms and provides us preferential market access without FOM. The risk to them is others will want the same.
It leaves the UK at the whim of the EU, it is the crappiest deal anyone could have thought up, 2 years to come up with that pile of crap. Dire negotiating.
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.
A second referendum based on the EU's ultimatum? Yeah, I like it too.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
Replacing Theresa May would make a lot of sense if you plan on either Brexit with no deal (or more likely a series of mini deals) or Remain since May isn't preparing for or seeking either of those.
And while no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this that is because they think May is done for and will sign whatever deal they give her, which is the case. If they found that suddenly in charge of the UK was someone who was dead seriously preparing for no deal they might suddenly find they have the time, interest and energy afterall.
To seek peace, prepare for war.
The UK is 16% of EU exports, the EU is 44% of UK exports.
The idea the EU will blink because of No Deal is absurd. If anyone blinks it will be us
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.
Provided you are listened to of course.
Wasn't that the argument for Remaining in the EU?
I think May has made it clear the only people she's listening to is Barnier and Robbins.
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.
And those who are not facing up to the reality that the current deal will fall in the House are what? Facilitators of a No Deal Brexit is what...
If renegotiating is either impossible or very hard then it is still facing up to reality to push for the deal even knowing it will fall in the house. You, the gutless five, many many tory backbenchers and labour think a new deal will be arranged easy enough, but if someone thinks it is very hard and risky then it doesn't ignore reality to not renegotiate.
And if it fails it fails. There still seem to be loads trying to even have mps not consider it. While it would tip our hand if I were the EU negotiators I would want to know how many mps would vote down the present deal and refuse to talk more until I knew.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
Replacing Theresa May would make a lot of sense if you plan on either Brexit with no deal (or more likely a series of mini deals) or Remain since May isn't preparing for or seeking either of those.
And while no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this that is because they think May is done for and will sign whatever deal they give her, which is the case. If they found that suddenly in charge of the UK was someone who was dead seriously preparing for no deal they might suddenly find they have the time, interest and energy afterall.
To seek peace, prepare for war.
The UK is 16% of EU exports, the EU is 44% of UK exports.
The idea the EU will blink because of No Deal is absurd. If anyone blinks it will be us
For the rest of the EU maybe, for Ireland no you can't say that.
And the backstop is only there because of Ireland. The rest of the EU won't care if the backstop goes, they are only putting it in because of Ireland. If Ireland blinks, the EU blinks.
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.
I agree - the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum. Labour / Remainers use it as a stick against the government. WTO Leavers pay it lip service but wouldn't really mind if we got a hard border.
To be fair that’s not quite true - there were a reasonable number of remainders (led by Major, Blair etc) saying during the referendum that the GFA was underpinned by membership of the EU with the border a key issue. The EU didn’t include it in their 3 “key priorities” on a whim.
Very true , I remember Major and Blair going to Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign. As I recall it was quite prominent in the news.
Unfortunately all that got lost in the Project Fear message of a pxxpoor REMAIN campaign that Labour gave mixed messages to.....there's plenty of culprits for this cock up
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.
A second referendum based on the EU's ultimatum? Yeah, I like it too.
No deal could well win. But the choice would be clear unlike contradictory promises from different groups on how it would be made better.
Thanks Mr Herdson, for a concise, if thoroughly depressing summary of the state of play. Ought to be required reading for anyone before they pontificate on the airwaves on the subject. One thing. There has been far too much complacency that we are dealing with rational informed people. Witness the c. 80% support for this deal on PB. From people who have been arguing with, and listening to, opposing views for years, and wrestling with the intricacies. The general public hasn't. Neither have our politicians. The groundwork for inevitable compromise was never done by either side.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
Changing the leader is a last resort. First you try to change the policy.
Sorry, what policy change are you seeking at this stage? A switch to advocating no deal? We’re not going to have a legal trade agreement by 31st March! If we did we wouldn’t be bothering with the withdrawal agreements/transition period.
Can anyone explain why May would go through all this if we really could get a Canada deal without a hard border in Northern Ireland and suffering significant economic damage?
All these Leavers who think freedom to make trade deals is so important might now reflect that the way that they gleefully fell in behind a campaign based on race-baiting anti-immigration themes means that they have no mandate for their priorities. Their current predicament is completely deserved.
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
Not so sure. He seems to be on something of a journey at the moment. He's certainly putting the hours in to talk to small businesses. Whether he is listening to what they say I don't know. But he certainly isn't living up to his billing as a doctrinaire Marxist. And the Labour leadership would have a very different set of pressures on them if they were negotiating. They would have to present their results to a very much pro-remain conference which has the ability to propose and vote on motions. It might have worked rather well.
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
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
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
Changing the leader is a last resort. First you try to change the policy.
Which they have done for 6 months. All waiting has done is paradoxically strengthen Mays hand because now there's no time to do much else than tweak unless the EU are generous enough to help us out. And the people asking them to be generous in giving us that time are the ones saying the most how they are no good.
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
You should definitely stay in and stand your ground. Good luck!
Can anyone explain why May would go through all this if we really could get a Canada deal without a hard border in Northern Ireland and suffering significant economic damage?
That's exactly what's proposed here: Canada no plus in the Political Statement and no hard border in Ireland. There will be economic damage and there's still stuff to work out. Not a bad deal nonetheless if we accept Brexit doesn't bring a single improvement over the status quo. If you don't accept that, we should cancel Brexit.
Edit to add. Canada means economic damage compared with the status quo.
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
Good luck big g, but it's over. Mps are going to reject this and then its a crapshoot.
The best chance of a deal is probably a GE backing labour. It would be very false of them, but if they presented a similar deal they'd probably get it through even though they are saying this one is terrible.
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
Changing the leader is a last resort. First you try to change the policy.
Sorry, what policy change are you seeking at this stage? A switch to advocating no deal? We’re not going to have a legal trade agreement by 31st March! If we did we wouldn’t be bothering with the withdrawal agreements/transition period.
We should agree to the transition period but not sign the Withdrawal agreement until there is a Trade agreement to sign.
To get a second referendum either May would have run out of other ways to stay in the job or Parliament would have to threaten to vote for a GE if not conceded.
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.
And those who are not facing up to the reality that the current deal will fall in the House are what? Facilitators of a No Deal Brexit is what...
If renegotiating is either impossible or very hard then it is still facing up to reality to push for the deal even knowing it will fall in the house. You, the gutless five, many many tory backbenchers and labour think a new deal will be arranged easy enough, but if someone thinks it is very hard and risky then it doesn't ignore reality to not renegotiate.
And if it fails it fails. There still seem to be loads trying to even have mps not consider it. While it would tip our hand if I were the EU negotiators I would want to know how many mps would vote down the present deal and refuse to talk more until I knew.
Who is saying "a new deal will be arranged easy enough"? No-one.
We are saying it is worth trying. At the moment two and a half years of the Barnier/May/Robbins roadshow has delivered a big fat nothing of any use use, other than a fast-track to No Deal. If you are satisfied with that, fine. Take the consequences. Others think we have to try to avert it.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
Replacing Theresa May would make a lot of sense if you plan on either Brexit with no deal (or more likely a series of mini deals) or Remain since May isn't preparing for or seeking either of those.
And while no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this that is because they think May is done for and will sign whatever deal they give her, which is the case. If they found that suddenly in charge of the UK was someone who was dead seriously preparing for no deal they might suddenly find they have the time, interest and energy afterall.
To seek peace, prepare for war.
The UK is 16% of EU exports, the EU is 44% of UK exports.
The idea the EU will blink because of No Deal is absurd. If anyone blinks it will be us
But EU exports are far greater than UK exports.
So 16% of a big number is much the same as 44% of a small number.
The EU has already said this deal is it. Not for re-negotiating. Except for the most minor of tweaks. The problem is no one has heard.
On the contrary they have heard. The ERG, masses of Tory backbenchers, the gutless five and labour say the EU are liars. Liars who will then give us what we want with us not conceding anything else.
Its nice to see both sides if the house adopt the same nefarious tactics of 'they'll give us what we want just because'
We should agree to the transition period but not sign the Withdrawal agreement until there is a Trade agreement to sign.
And pay £20 billion on a timetable as agreed, a further £20 billion once the Trade Agreement is signed. Which is somewhere any half decent negotiation would have landed us.
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
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
Changing the leader is a last resort. First you try to change the policy.
Sorry, what policy change are you seeking at this stage? A switch to advocating no deal? We’re not going to have a legal trade agreement by 31st March! If we did we wouldn’t be bothering with the withdrawal agreements/transition period.
We should agree to the transition period but not sign the Withdrawal agreement until there is a Trade agreement to sign.
No withdrawal agreement no transition. The EU isn’t going to let us effectively stay in the EU for two years for free.
Replacing Theresa May would be displacement activity. Whatever her many flaws, it would deflect from the basic choice, which is: go with this deal; Brexit with no deal; or Remain. (“Renegotiating” is just another way of deferring the same choice because no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this, nor should they when Britain is so hopelessly riven - it would simply encourage the next group of impossibilists to hold out for more.)
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
Replacing Theresa May would make a lot of sense if you plan on either Brexit with no deal (or more likely a series of mini deals) or Remain since May isn't preparing for or seeking either of those.
And while no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this that is because they think May is done for and will sign whatever deal they give her, which is the case. If they found that suddenly in charge of the UK was someone who was dead seriously preparing for no deal they might suddenly find they have the time, interest and energy afterall.
To seek peace, prepare for war.
The UK is 16% of EU exports, the EU is 44% of UK exports.
The idea the EU will blink because of No Deal is absurd. If anyone blinks it will be us
But EU exports are far greater than UK exports.
So 16% of a big number is much the same as 44% of a small number.
That's true. Billionaires take as much care over £1000 as I would.
To get a second referendum either May would have run out of other ways to stay in the job or Parliament would have to threaten to vote for a GE if not conceded.
And thanks to Cleggy’s FTPA you only need under 220 MPs to block that don’t you? Isn’t it a two thirds majority needed to trigger a GE before five years? Unless it was repealed first but that’s a whole zoo too.
The deal has no merits whatsoever. No deal is unacceptable to the Remainers who have a majority in HoC and clearly don’t want to take back control or spend the money to properly prepare for no deal. They are clearly intent on obstructing the referendum in all respects.
That leaves two options. No Brexit which would probably involve losing all the opt outs, signing up to the Eurozone etc and making the Tories unelectable for a generation or EEA/EFTA as a measure of last resort which would please no one but limit the damage of no deal having failed to properly prepare for it.
That of course solves nothing and it just means the Brexit debate will roll on for years and continue to dominate the political agenda and Remainers try and take us back in and Leavers try to prepare for a proper exit. The sensible option of completely leaving and having an FTA between the UK and the EU has fallen between EU pride and UK incompetence.
That leaves two options. No Brexit which would probably involve losing all the opt outs, signing up to the Eurozone etc and making the Tories unelectable for a generation or EEA/EFTA as a measure of last resort which would please no one but limit the damage of no deal having failed to properly prepare for it.
There's no way to bypass the withdrawal agreement and go straight to an EFTA/EEA arrangement.
The EU has already said this deal is it. Not for re-negotiating. Except for the most minor of tweaks. The problem is no one has heard.
On the contrary they have heard. The ERG, masses of Tory backbenchers, the gutless five and labour say the EU are liars. Liars who will then give us what we want with us not conceding anything else.
Its nice to see both sides if the house adopt the same nefarious tactics of 'they'll give us what we want just because'
Well indeed. It really is Cyclefree's Noel Edmonds situation. People haven't, or more likely, are refusing to, catch on. Of all the options, a re-negotiation is the most impossible. There is neither the time nor the will from the EU. So, it is, of course, the one politicians coalesce around and hang their hopes on.
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
+1
Anyone promising to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, whether McDonnell or Gove, is not facing up to reality.
And those who are not facing up to the reality that the current deal will fall in the House are what? Facilitators of a No Deal Brexit is what...
If renegotiating is either impossible or very hard then it is still facing up to reality to push for the deal not renegotiate.
And if it fails it fails. There still seem to be loads trying to even have mps not consider it. While it would tip our hand if I were the EU negotiators I would want to know how many mps would vote down the present deal and refuse to talk more until I knew.
Who is saying "a new deal will be arranged easy enough"? No-one.
We are saying it is worth trying. At the moment two and a half years of the Barnier/May/Robbins roadshow has delivered a big fat nothing of any use use, other than a fast-track to No Deal. If you are satisfied with that, fine. Take the consequences. Others think we have to try to avert it.
It is implied to be easy because it assumes the EU will give us the extra time we need without explaining why the EU would be so generous. The problems are said to be fundamental. Which means it will take time. And it is implied to be easy by dismissing the risks. The gutless five think a few days fiddling with text will come up with something years of wrangling hasn't.
If mps think it is necessary to try that is fine. But they had better admit it could go very wrong, that there risk.
That is all I want. I know the deal will fall. Mps are entitled to do so and many problems have been raised. But you and they may think no deal unlikely it is still a risk and they need to acknowledge the risk.
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
Sounds totally possible to me, the current government spent more of their time arguing with itself, and when it wasn't doing that it was mostly banging its head against a wall. And it's not like they'd have to rewrite all 500 oages.
The people who hate the curent deal would hate Labour's even more though.
The deal has no merits whatsoever. No deal is unacceptable to the Remainers who have a majority in HoC and clearly don’t want to take back control or spend the money to properly prepare for no deal. They are clearly intent on obstructing the referendum in all respects.
That leaves two options. No Brexit which would probably involve losing all the opt outs, signing up to the Eurozone etc and making the Tories unelectable for a generation or EEA/EFTA as a measure of last resort which would please no one but limit the damage of no deal having failed to properly prepare for it.
That of course solves nothing and it just means the Brexit debate will roll on for years and continue to dominate the political agenda and Remainers try and take us back in and Leavers try to prepare for a proper exit. The sensible option of completely leaving and having an FTA between the UK and the EU has fallen between EU pride and UK incompetence.
The one and only thing we can all be sure of is that whatever happens the Brexit debate will roll on for years. There are now two huge groups of highly motivated campaigners on either side. Neither is likely to call it a day. This is an issue that is not going away.
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
Sounds totally possible to me, the current government spent more of their time arguing with itself, and when it wasn't doing that it was mostly banging its head against a wall. And it's not like they'd have to rewrite all 500 oages.
The people who hate the curent deal would hate Labour's even more though.
What do you think Labour could change? You realise their policy is to ask for a customs union in which the UK would get a say over the EU's trade deals?
To get a second referendum either May would have run out of other ways to stay in the job or Parliament would have to threaten to vote for a GE if not conceded.
And thanks to Cleggy’s FTPA you only need under 220 MPs to block that don’t you? Isn’t it a two thirds majority needed to trigger a GE before five years? Unless it was repealed first but that’s a whole zoo too.
I think there are two ways to trigger a GE. One is the two-thirds majority you describe. The other is the government losing a formal vote of no confidence and no other grouping being able to gain the confidence of the house in the next 14 days.
The EU has already said this deal is it. Not for re-negotiating. Except for the most minor of tweaks. The problem is no one has heard.
On the contrary they have heard. The ERG, masses of Tory backbenchers, the gutless five and labour say the EU are liars. Liars who will then give us what we want with us not conceding anything else.
Its nice to see both sides if the house adopt the same nefarious tactics of 'they'll give us what we want just because'
In fairness Labour would actually be happier to have a closer and/or more permanent relationship which is something the EU would be happy with, whether they would refuse that on principle of not reopening negotiations at this point if Labour got into the position to negotiate it seems unlikely but not impossible.
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 ...............
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.
Given they will have UK on a string why will they agree to anything decent on trade, far better to just keep it as a plaything.
We have given away out negotiating hand if we sign the withdrawal agreement before we have a legal trade agreement to sign.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
If that's the sticking point I believe it was conceded a long long time ago so why didnt letters go in then?
Changing the leader is a last resort. First you try to change the policy.
Sorry, what policy change are you seeking at this stage? A switch to advocating no deal? We’re not going to have a legal trade agreement by 31st March! If we did we wouldn’t be bothering with the withdrawal agreements/transition period.
We should agree to the transition period but not sign the Withdrawal agreement until there is a Trade agreement to sign.
Um. The transition period is the Withdrawal Agreement from our PoV. Without the transition we would never agree the WA. Everything else is for the EU's interest.
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
Stanley Johnson is a Remainer so you are likely wrong about what you think it tells you.
But I do wonder if Jo Johnson's antics are part of a plot to bring down May and make Boris PM.
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
Sounds totally possible to me, the current government spent more of their time arguing with itself, and when it wasn't doing that it was mostly banging its head against a wall. And it's not like they'd have to rewrite all 500 oages.
The people who hate the curent deal would hate Labour's even more though.
What do you think Labour could change? You realise their policy is to ask for a customs union in which the UK would get a say over the EU's trade deals?
Moreover people are saying very fundamental bits require change. Tweaking may be possible but both sides want, or claim to want, more than tweaks.
Heck, some are still arguing over there even being a transition period at all.
The deal has no merits whatsoever. No deal is unacceptable to the Remainers who have a majority in HoC and clearly don’t want to take back control or spend the money to properly prepare for no deal. They are clearly intent on obstructing the referendum in all respects.
That leaves two options. No Brexit which would probably involve losing all the opt outs, signing up to the Eurozone etc and making the Tories unelectable for a generation or EEA/EFTA as a measure of last resort which would please no one but limit the damage of no deal having failed to properly prepare for it.
That of course solves nothing and it just means the Brexit debate will roll on for years and continue to dominate the political agenda and Remainers try and take us back in and Leavers try to prepare for a proper exit. The sensible option of completely leaving and having an FTA between the UK and the EU has fallen between EU pride and UK incompetence.
The one and only thing we can all be sure of is that whatever happens the Brexit debate will roll on for years. There are now two huge groups of highly motivated campaigners on either side. Neither is likely to call it a day. This is an issue that is not going away.
Absolutely this. Yesterday, an Economist came through the letterbox with a splashy cover which read "Brexit's endgame". I was too flabbergasted by the naivety even to open it.
The deal has no merits whatsoever. No deal is unacceptable to the Remainers who have a majority in HoC and clearly don’t want to take back control or spend the money to properly prepare for no deal. They are clearly intent on obstructing the referendum in all respects.
That leaves two options. No Brexit which would probably involve losing all the opt outs, signing up to the Eurozone etc and making the Tories unelectable for a generation or EEA/EFTA as a measure of last resort which would please no one but limit the damage of no deal having failed to properly prepare for it.
That of course solves nothing and it just means the Brexit debate will roll on for years and continue to dominate the political agenda and Remainers try and take us back in and Leavers try to prepare for a proper exit. The sensible option of completely leaving and having an FTA between the UK and the EU has fallen between EU pride and UK incompetence.
The one and only thing we can all be sure of is that whatever happens the Brexit debate will roll on for years. There are now two huge groups of highly motivated campaigners on either side. Neither is likely to call it a day. This is an issue that is not going away.
Why do you think some people haven't accepted the result of the referendum in 2016?
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
Stanley Johnson is a Remainer so you are likely wrong about what you think it tells you.
But I do wonder if Jo Johnson's antics are part of a plot to bring down May and make Boris PM.
Is it true there has already been a pre-Brexit run on tinfoil in your local stores?
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
Stanley Johnson is a Remainer so you are likely wrong about what you think it tells you.
But I do wonder if Jo Johnson's antics are part of a plot to bring down May and make Boris PM.
Is it true there has already been a pre-Brexit run on tinfoil in your local stores?
Are you denying that Boris is extremely ambitious ?
It is implied to be easy because it assumes the EU will give us the extra time we need without explaining why the EU would be so generous. The problems are said to be fundamental. Which means it will take time. And it is implied to be easy by dismissing the risks. The gutless five think a few days fiddling with text will come up with something years of wrangling hasn't.
If mps think it is necessary to try that is fine. But they had better admit it could go very wrong, that there risk.
That is all I want. I know the deal will fall. Mps are entitled to do so and many problems have been raised. But you and they may think no deal unlikely it is still a risk and they need to acknowledge the risk.
You think Brussels is looking at the current turmoil, and the very likely rejection of what they have spent two years negotiating, and are thinking "Great job, Barnier."? Is it possible there might just be a teensy weensy little bit of " Oh fuck...." being expressed - that this is going to go horribly wrong for all?
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
Sounds totally possible to me, the current government spent more of their time arguing with itself, and when it wasn't doing that it was mostly banging its head against a wall. And it's not like they'd have to rewrite all 500 oages.
The people who hate the curent deal would hate Labour's even more though.
What do you think Labour could change? You realise their policy is to ask for a customs union in which the UK would get a say over the EU's trade deals?
lol, I'm not saying they'd get what they're saying they'd get...
Start at pure BINO which is membership but without the voting ability, then pick off bits of market access given up in exchange for no CAP, mild restrictions on freedom of movement etc.
It is implied to be easy because it assumes the EU will give us the extra time we need without explaining why the EU would be so generous. The problems are said to be fundamental. Which means it will take time. And it is implied to be easy by dismissing the risks. The gutless five think a few days fiddling with text will come up with something years of wrangling hasn't.
If mps think it is necessary to try that is fine. But they had better admit it could go very wrong, that there risk.
That is all I want. I know the deal will fall. Mps are entitled to do so and many problems have been raised. But you and they may think no deal unlikely it is still a risk and they need to acknowledge the risk.
You think Brussels is looking at the current turmoil, and the very likely rejection of what they have spent two years negotiating, and are thinking "Great job, Barnier."? Is it possible there might just be a teensy weensy little bit of " Oh fuck...." being expressed - that this is going to go horribly wrong for all?
No. I don't think the EU and members do think that.
I find the lack of knowledge and complete blindness of ERG members extraordinary. It seems they are in denial of the reality of the position and want to bring down our economy with a walk out in March next year crashing jobs and the economy in one act of utter sabotage.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
Stanley Johnson is a Remainer so you are likely wrong about what you think it tells you.
But I do wonder if Jo Johnson's antics are part of a plot to bring down May and make Boris PM.
Is it true there has already been a pre-Brexit run on tinfoil in your local stores?
Are you denying that Boris is extremely ambitious ?
I'm denying his brother would help Boris's ambitions - at the cost of his own!
It is implied to be easy because it assumes the EU will give us the extra time we need without explaining why the EU would be so generous. The problems are said to be fundamental. Which means it will take time. And it is implied to be easy by dismissing the risks. The gutless five think a few days fiddling with text will come up with something years of wrangling hasn't.
If mps think it is necessary to try that is fine. But they had better admit it could go very wrong, that there risk.
That is all I want. I know the deal will fall. Mps are entitled to do so and many problems have been raised. But you and they may think no deal unlikely it is still a risk and they need to acknowledge the risk.
You think Brussels is looking at the current turmoil, and the very likely rejection of what they have spent two years negotiating, and are thinking "Great job, Barnier."? Is it possible there might just be a teensy weensy little bit of " Oh fuck...." being expressed - that this is going to go horribly wrong for all?
Thise things aren't incompatible: Barnier did a great job under the circumstances, but ultimately it's not clear that the British can agree to anything.
It is implied to be easy because it assumes the EU will give us the extra time we need without explaining why the EU would be so generous. The problems are said to be fundamental. Which means it will take time. And it is implied to be easy by dismissing the risks. The gutless five think a few days fiddling with text will come up with something years of wrangling hasn't.
If mps think it is necessary to try that is fine. But they had better admit it could go very wrong, that there risk.
That is all I want. I know the deal will fall. Mps are entitled to do so and many problems have been raised. But you and they may think no deal unlikely it is still a risk and they need to acknowledge the risk.
You think Brussels is looking at the current turmoil, and the very likely rejection of what they have spent two years negotiating, and are thinking "Great job, Barnier."? Is it possible there might just be a teensy weensy little bit of " Oh fuck...." being expressed - that this is going to go horribly wrong for all?
More likely exasperation. We spent 18 months not knowing what we want. Then got the majority of what we want. But now we don't want it.
Comments
The choice does not change with the leader. The problem is that the choice has yet to be made by MPs.
She's not been a good PM even considering it was not going to be easy. But she's not harming the country by not going- if there was a clear path to take which had no harm they'd have removed her. The harm exists separate to her and it's not being fixed because parliament is so split.
It's a non starter.
Next.
It’s not permanent. They could A50 and no deal
There is no Ireland border issue.
It is clearly better for remainers.
It slaughters all the unicorns (Labour, ERG, DUP). And finally gets the job done so we and the EU can concentrate on other pressing matters.
Sometimes markets are biased towards the status quo or establishment view because they are run by people.
What happened to nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
I would not be against a second referendum with May's three possibilities: the deal, no deal, no Brexit. Voters expressing first and second preferences, as outlined by Ross Clark.
Prior to the deal being announced they could have argued what they are but not now. They don't support the deal as is but the gov does. Ergo they should quit.
They might as well appoint Reesmogg as brexit secretary - he opposes the deal but will try to convince may to change course, same as them.
It's not right. If the deal is too bad to support, fine, a majority of mps agree. Those in cabinet were stated to back it.
Therefore they are liars.
Now if you judge May's deal by Sovereignty and ability to do Trade deals it's ****ing awful. They know if we don't leave the Customs Union now in the white heat of Brexit we'll never do it down the line. They've read the WA and know how much Norwegian style Fax Democracy it contains.
The problem is you are an ERG style Brexiter then going Nuclear over the WA is perfectly rational. It's now or never and this isn't the Brexit they spent half a lifetime on.
The defence of May's deal is curiously May both understands and cares about the nature of the Leave vote more than some folk who spent 25 years working for this. The Tory Party is split between the Dr Frankensteins and their Monster on this.
Which takes us back as ever to Dominic Cummings and his Midas touch. Able to win Brexit but only by transmuting it into some different and undeliverable.
If voted down a second time it could be the biggest market crash since WW2 and the £ will also plunge further accordingly.
The markets want The Deal to pass, they just about may think Parliament may vote down the only Deal available the first time but not that it would be stupid enough to vote it down a second time too
Whoever wrote it either hasn't read the text properly or hasn't understood it properly. Either way, they are not worth reading.
I have more work to do than England's spinners. Have a good morning.
And while no one on the EU side has the time, interest or energy to engage with this that is because they think May is done for and will sign whatever deal they give her, which is the case. If they found that suddenly in charge of the UK was someone who was dead seriously preparing for no deal they might suddenly find they have the time, interest and energy afterall.
To seek peace, prepare for war.
As I recall it was quite prominent in the news.
Yeah, I like it too.
The idea the EU will blink because of No Deal is absurd. If anyone blinks it will be us
I think May has made it clear the only people she's listening to is Barnier and Robbins.
And if it fails it fails. There still seem to be loads trying to even have mps not consider it. While it would tip our hand if I were the EU negotiators I would want to know how many mps would vote down the present deal and refuse to talk more until I knew.
And the backstop is only there because of Ireland. The rest of the EU won't care if the backstop goes, they are only putting it in because of Ireland. If Ireland blinks, the EU blinks.
One thing. There has been far too much complacency that we are dealing with rational informed people. Witness the c. 80% support for this deal on PB. From people who have been arguing with, and listening to, opposing views for years, and wrestling with the intricacies.
The general public hasn't. Neither have our politicians. The groundwork for inevitable compromise was never done by either side.
It must not be allowed to happen
My party is in just a bad a place as labour and it depresses me. The infiltration of UKIP into ERG has put my membership under threat. I will never support these wreckers. Pictures of Boris Johnson, his Father and Farage out together at a restaurant tells you all you need to know.
I hope my fellow moderate conservatives will join me in denouncing ERG and campaign for TM deal or to remain in the EU.
That is the only antidote to this poison
Edit to add. Canada means economic damage compared with the status quo.
The best chance of a deal is probably a GE backing labour. It would be very false of them, but if they presented a similar deal they'd probably get it through even though they are saying this one is terrible.
The problem is no one has heard.
We are saying it is worth trying. At the moment two and a half years of the Barnier/May/Robbins roadshow has delivered a big fat nothing of any use use, other than a fast-track to No Deal. If you are satisfied with that, fine. Take the consequences. Others think we have to try to avert it.
So 16% of a big number is much the same as 44% of a small number.
Its nice to see both sides if the house adopt the same nefarious tactics of 'they'll give us what we want just because'
In 1956 it was a crisis but the following election they had a majority of three figures.
Hard to see a similar outcome.
Oh wait
They don't.
That leaves two options. No Brexit which would probably involve losing all the opt outs, signing up to the Eurozone etc and making the Tories unelectable for a generation or EEA/EFTA as a measure of last resort which would please no one but limit the damage of no deal having failed to properly prepare for it.
That of course solves nothing and it just means the Brexit debate will roll on for years and continue to dominate the political agenda and Remainers try and take us back in and Leavers try to prepare for a proper exit. The sensible option of completely leaving and having an FTA between the UK and the EU has fallen between EU pride and UK incompetence.
Of all the options, a re-negotiation is the most impossible. There is neither the time nor the will from the EU.
So, it is, of course, the one politicians coalesce around and hang their hopes on.
If mps think it is necessary to try that is fine. But they had better admit it could go very wrong, that there risk.
That is all I want. I know the deal will fall. Mps are entitled to do so and many problems have been raised. But you and they may think no deal unlikely it is still a risk and they need to acknowledge the risk.
The people who hate the curent deal would hate Labour's even more though.
But I do wonder if Jo Johnson's antics are part of a plot to bring down May and make Boris PM.
Heck, some are still arguing over there even being a transition period at all.
Absolutely this. Yesterday, an Economist came through the letterbox with a splashy cover which read "Brexit's endgame". I was too flabbergasted by the naivety even to open it.
Start at pure BINO which is membership but without the voting ability, then pick off bits of market access given up in exchange for no CAP, mild restrictions on freedom of movement etc.
But now we don't want it.