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?
Why should they? It was a narrow margin. The campaigns were largely negative. But speaking personally, I would have got on board if there had been a plan and some objectives. There were neither. Liam Fox came up with something eventually, but it was too late for me.
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?
Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.
And if they are maybe they would be willing to do something and maybe they wouldn't.
And if they are are willing to do something maybe it would please the ERG and maybe it wouldn't.
While on your side you are willing to risk no Brexit, economic chaos, a split Conservative party and a Corbyn majority government.
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.
You can have some sympathy for the EU's exasperation at having to deal with the political equivalent of Lou and Andy. But that's why we should never be in the EU in the first place....
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!
I'm sure Boris would be willing to give his little bro a nice job in the cabinet afterwards.
And that's the only conceivable path Jo Johnson would have to becoming 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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
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.
It is clearly better for remainers.
Except, politically, it stinks like a rotten kipper. Imagine trying to sell a deal to the public or HoC that ends with automatic reentry to a Union 17 million people voted to leave. Plus the ERG would laugh it out of the house, why would they agree to something like that? They can't be sure that in 2 years time they'd have the power to retrigger A50.
They could call it the hokey cokey clause: if this happened we would literally be in, out, in, out!
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The more I reflect on Gove and co the angrier I get. It's so gutless. They are directly opposing the PM while, by staying in post and not sending in letters, pretending otherwise.
It may well be possible to renegotiate some bits and they and labour are right to try, but that is not the government position and if they want to change it they should have gone. May would be brought down and someone can then try it.
Disgraceful.
Agreed. Surely there would be a level of support for Theresa May on both sides of the House if she were to undertake a night of the long knives and throw the ERGers out of the cabinet? Since the ERG already seem to view her the way the Thatcherites viewed Edward Heath, she might as well ask "Who governs?" while she's at it.
Given the liars and nonenties she has had to appoint to replace the last resignations, wtf are you wittering about, who else would be stupid enough to support this useless stubborn halfwit
You sound as if you got out of the wrong side of bed. Hand over Number 10 to what is in practice the smaller party in the coalition it is then? Something has to break. I don't think it will be the ERG either but I hope it will be. You refer to liars. The line that what was provisionally agreed in the draft agreement should be renegotiated - currently being purveyed by "friends of Michael" etc. - is utterly disingenuous. Why not sack him? I don't think May is about to, or to purge the ERG, and I don't think she'd win a VONC either, but if she did win one (huge Spartan if) then that's the path. One problem for her and for the parliamentary Tory party is what on earth they would put in the party's manifesto in the event of a GE.
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
I agree, I would vote for Mays deal. However parliament will not, Therefore you have to deal with reality not just carry on regardless. If as a government you do not have the numbers, something has to change. The conservative party has always been ruthless and pragmatic about holding onto power.
As what happened in 1990 a change from Thatcher to Major changed the parties fortunes overnight. Major was fairly unknown to the wider public at the time. A change of leader could change the dynamic. To many not interested in politics a change of leader is a change of government.
Labour would prefer May to a new Conservative leader as the change takes away one of their most potent weapons in opposition.
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The democratic deficit is a big deal surely.
The bigness of the deal gets smaller every day as more and more of the elderly Leavers shuffle off into the night.
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.
It is clearly better for remainers.
Except, politically, it stinks like a rotten kipper. Imagine trying to sell a deal to the public or HoC that ends with automatic reentry to a Union 17 million people voted to leave. Plus the ERG would laugh it out of the house, why would they agree to something like that? They can't be sure that in 2 years time they'd have the power to retrigger A50.
They could call it the hokey cokey clause: if this happened we would literally be in, out, in, out!
Stinks less than backstop. A50 applies to all standard members. There is no added risk for the EU or ERG.
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 would love to have overheard the conversation between the father, the son and the holy ghost [Jo]. I think that if Boris could flip to remain and still further his political ambition he would do it.
He needs first to convincingly rubbish no deal and persuade key Tory members to accept that no deal is very damaging. Then he needs to argue that Remain is better for the time being than Mrs May's abomination of a deal avoiding vassal status, with perhaps some ERG members supporting him in that. There is path for him but it's very difficult.
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The democratic deficit is a big deal surely.
The bigness of the deal gets smaller every day as more and more of the elderly Leavers shuffle off into the night.
So you’re happy to commit to rules we do not know, cannot influence and cannot opt out of.
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The democratic deficit is a big deal surely.
The bigness of the deal gets smaller every day as more and more of the elderly Leavers shuffle off into the night.
So you’re happy to commit to rules we do not know, cannot influence and cannot opt out of.
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 would love to have overheard the conversation between the father, the son and the holy ghost [Jo]. I think that if Boris could flip to remain and still further his political ambition he would do it.
He needs first to convincingly rubbish no deal and persuade key Tory members to accept that no deal is very damaging. Then he needs to argue that Remain is better for the time being than Mrs May's abomination of a deal avoiding vassal status, with perhaps some ERG members supporting him in that. There is path for him but it's very difficult.
Boris also needs a narrative for why backing Leave in 2016 was right at the time. He can reframe it as a vote against the inspiring half-in, half-out approach that would be perpetuated under the Brexit deal, and flip to making a political case for closer integration.
Are you denying that Boris is extremely ambitious ?
Boris Johnson's choices regarding how and when to put his oar in suggest that he is, but so are many people and laying him as next PM at 9.6 is one of the least risky ways to make an 11.6% return. His leadership hopes would be destroyed within a few hours of him announcing he's available, and probably before.
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The democratic deficit is a big deal surely.
The democratic deficit is a big deal. Regardless of other criticisms, the current deal avoids the Vassal State after the transition period. We're not committing to implementing rules that we haven't agreed to. That may change later . In fact I think it will. But we're good for now.
At Wednesday lunchtime, the DExEU team tried to politely inform those making the arrangements that their minister would likely not be travelling. Then a senior Downing Street official offered to let Raab out of cabinet early so he could fly via helicopter across the Channel, promising him a movie-style entrance to the Barnier photo opportunity. This was rebuffed.
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.
Exactly!
😂😂😂😂😂😂
But really I suppose 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 is more appropriate when you think of the catastrophic mess we are in.
There is an argument that replacing May might just secure the passage of the current “ Withdrawl Deal.”
This is because leavers like me now simply don’t trust her and her civil service advisors. Therefore we have no confidence as to how subsequent negotiations may develop with the Trade Deal because there are too many hostages to fortune in the Withdrawl Deal.
Knowing that there will be a genuine Leaver in charge, supported by a new negotiating team including non career civil servants could build enough confidence to take the risk. Sort of like Nixon and China.
Maybe just enough MPs might think that too?
And a few cosmetic and probably achievable minor changes to the Withdrawl Deal, like removing the exemption from U.K. income tax for EU staff pensioners would at least be be a demonstrable signal that the new regime is not “part of the club.”
Actually I think despite the sound and fury, especially from the Brexiteers, the deal may not be dead. I suspect late next week, there will be some drastically more sober assessments of the situation. Especially if Jacob Hyphen-Hyphen has totally blown it: if he doesn't even get the 48, then the "ERG" are turned into an irrelevant laughing stock. Paradoxically the PM would be stronger if the VNOC does go ahead, since it is now quite probable that the vote against her might not be much more than the 48 plus a dozen or so malcontents, so she would be safe for another year. The failure of the ERGs still leaves the sword of Damocles over her head.
Meanwhile the DM is putting the boot into BoJo, associating him with Farage, who is now toxic waste for a variety of reasons, not least the Russia/Assange connection. The grey suits are also rallying round.
TM has been able to shape the choice: this deal, no deal or referendum. If the Brexiteers can't handle it and end with a no deal, then the Tories will be massacred in the aftermath. A referendum would see Brexit defeated and the Tories laid waste in a subsequent GE. So the calculation will be on this deal... and a bit of face saving and back tracking (and a bucketful of arm twisting) and the number of rebels might be less than 20 or so, which means that the arithmetic is a lot closer than it looks right now... I think its 50/50 she gets it.
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The democratic deficit is a big deal surely.
The bigness of the deal gets smaller every day as more and more of the elderly Leavers shuffle off into the night.
So you’re happy to commit to rules we do not know, cannot influence and cannot opt out of.
Inherent to Brexit.
Counterintuitively, I don't think most Leavers care about sovereignty because that implies choices and trade offs. They like the idea of sovereignty and the symbols of it. But they are not interested in the exercise
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 would love to have overheard the conversation between the father, the son and the holy ghost [Jo]. I think that if Boris could flip to remain and still further his political ambition he would do it.
He needs first to convincingly rubbish no deal and persuade key Tory members to accept that no deal is very damaging. Then he needs to argue that Remain is better for the time being than Mrs May's abomination of a deal avoiding vassal status, with perhaps some ERG members supporting him in that. There is path for him but it's very difficult.
Boris also needs a narrative for why backing Leave in 2016 was right at the time. He can reframe it as a vote against the inspiring half-in, half-out approach that would be perpetuated under the Brexit deal, and flip to making a political case for closer integration.
...the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum...
I mentioned it on here. Frequently. And was roundly mocked by my pains. John Major and Tony Blair went there and pointed the problem out.
I've mentioned before on here that there's a brain injury called "Hemispatial neglect". Patients with it will vehemently deny that one side of the world (say, the left side) exists. They will ignore food on one side of the plate, use a knife and fork in one hand but not the other, and so on.
I have been saying for years that there is a significant stratum of GB people that suffer from something similar wrt Northern Ireland. They will get agitated when it's mentioned and deny that it matters or should be considered.
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 would love to have overheard the conversation between the father, the son and the holy ghost [Jo]. I think that if Boris could flip to remain and still further his political ambition he would do it.
He needs first to convincingly rubbish no deal and persuade key Tory members to accept that no deal is very damaging. Then he needs to argue that Remain is better for the time being than Mrs May's abomination of a deal avoiding vassal status, with perhaps some ERG members supporting him in that. There is path for him but it's very difficult.
Boris also needs a narrative for why backing Leave in 2016 was right at the time. He can reframe it as a vote against the inspiring half-in, half-out approach that would be perpetuated under the Brexit deal, and flip to making a political case for closer integration.
You really are bonkers, aren't you?
Let's see what happens.
PS. There's a typo in that post - it should be "uninspiring".
Boris also needs a narrative for why backing Leave in 2016 was right at the time. He can reframe it as a vote against the inspiring half-in, half-out approach that would be perpetuated under the Brexit deal, and flip to making a political case for closer integration.
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
...the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum...
I mentioned it on here. Frequently. And was roundly mocked by my pains. John Major and Tony Blair went there and pointed the problem out.
I've mentioned before on here that there's a brain injury called "Hemispatial neglect". Patients with it will vehemently deny that one side of the world (say, the left side) exists. They will ignore food on one side of the plate, use a knife and fork in one hand but not the other, and so on.
I have been saying for years that there is a significant stratum of GB people that suffer from something similar wrt Northern Ireland. They will get agitated when it's mentioned and deny that it matters or should be considered.
Actually I think despite the sound and fury, especially from the Brexiteers, the deal may not be dead. I suspect late next week, there will be some drastically more sober assessments of the situation. Especially if Jacob Hyphen-Hyphen has totally blown it: if he doesn't even get the 48, then the "ERG" are turned into an irrelevant laughing stock. Paradoxically the PM would be stronger if the VNOC does go ahead, since it is now quite probable that the vote against her might not be much more than the 48 plus a dozen or so malcontents, so she would be safe for another year. The failure of the ERGs still leaves the sword of Damocles over her head.
Meanwhile the DM is putting the boot into BoJo, associating him with Farage, who is now toxic waste for a variety of reasons, not least the Russia/Assange connection. The grey suits are also rallying round.
TM has been able to shape the choice: this deal, no deal or referendum. If the Brexiteers can't handle it and end with a no deal, then the Tories will be massacred in the aftermath. A referendum would see Brexit defeated and the Tories laid waste in a subsequent GE. So the calculation will be on this deal... and a bit of face saving and back tracking (and a bucketful of arm twisting) and the number of rebels might be less than 20 or so, which means that the arithmetic is a lot closer than it looks right now... I think its 50/50 she gets it.
Fair post. Indeed I think everyone should see what happens if the deal is announced in Brussels next Sunday
It is going to be a huge event with massive publicity, interviews with EU leaders, and much more
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
Actually I think despite the sound and fury, especially from the Brexiteers, the deal may not be dead. I suspect late next week, there will be some drastically more sober assessments of the situation. Especially if Jacob Hyphen-Hyphen has totally blown it: if he doesn't even get the 48, then the "ERG" are turned into an irrelevant laughing stock. Paradoxically the PM would be stronger if the VNOC does go ahead, since it is now quite probable that the vote against her might not be much more than the 48 plus a dozen or so malcontents, so she would be safe for another year. The failure of the ERGs still leaves the sword of Damocles over her head.
Meanwhile the DM is putting the boot into BoJo, associating him with Farage, who is now toxic waste for a variety of reasons, not least the Russia/Assange connection. The grey suits are also rallying round.
TM has been able to shape the choice: this deal, no deal or referendum. If the Brexiteers can't handle it and end with a no deal, then the Tories will be massacred in the aftermath. A referendum would see Brexit defeated and the Tories laid waste in a subsequent GE. So the calculation will be on this deal... and a bit of face saving and back tracking (and a bucketful of arm twisting) and the number of rebels might be less than 20 or so, which means that the arithmetic is a lot closer than it looks right now... I think its 50/50 she gets it.
Probably a bit early to declare the ERG coup a failure, but certainly looks that way today. It is nearly 48 hours since Mogg went public with his letter, and yet nothing from Brady.
I suppose he might keep quiet over the weekend, as what's the point making an announcement until MPs return on Monday.
Nadine Dorries said today that in a vnoc conservative mps would see that if TM won she would be there for another year so 90% (yes 90%) would vote her out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
...the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum...
I mentioned it on here. Frequently. And was roundly mocked by my pains. John Major and Tony Blair went there and pointed the problem out.
I've mentioned before on here that there's a brain injury called "Hemispatial neglect". Patients with it will vehemently deny that one side of the world (say, the left side) exists. They will ignore food on one side of the plate, use a knife and fork in one hand but not the other, and so on.
I have been saying for years that there is a significant stratum of GB people that suffer from something similar wrt Northern Ireland. They will get agitated when it's mentioned and deny that it matters or should be considered.
Actually I think despite the sound and fury, especially from the Brexiteers, the deal may not be dead. I suspect late next week, there will be some drastically more sober assessments of the situation. Especially if Jacob Hyphen-Hyphen has totally blown it: if he doesn't even get the 48, then the "ERG" are turned into an irrelevant laughing stock. Paradoxically the PM would be stronger if the VNOC does go ahead, since it is now quite probable that the vote against her might not be much more than the 48 plus a dozen or so malcontents, so she would be safe for another year. The failure of the ERGs still leaves the sword of Damocles over her head.
Meanwhile the DM is putting the boot into BoJo, associating him with Farage, who is now toxic waste for a variety of reasons, not least the Russia/Assange connection. The grey suits are also rallying round.
TM has been able to shape the choice: this deal, no deal or referendum. If the Brexiteers can't handle it and end with a no deal, then the Tories will be massacred in the aftermath. A referendum would see Brexit defeated and the Tories laid waste in a subsequent GE. So the calculation will be on this deal... and a bit of face saving and back tracking (and a bucketful of arm twisting) and the number of rebels might be less than 20 or so, which means that the arithmetic is a lot closer than it looks right now... I think its 50/50 she gets it.
Probably a bit early to declare the ERG coup a failure, but certainly looks that way today. It is nearly 48 hours since Mogg went public with his letter, and yet nothing from Brady.
I suppose he might keep quiet over the weekend, as what's the point making an announcement until MPs return on Monday.
I suspect you are tight, JRM is a paper tiger. However, I wonder whether Brady is waiting for the least damaging moment for the announcement (ie in consultation with CCHQ and No 10). I reckon no announcement before Monday afternoon - not that I am sure there 47 letters
Nadine Dorries said today that in a vnoc conservative mps would see that if TM won she would be there for another year so 90% (yes 90%) would vote her out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it delusion? Change "another year" to "into the next election" and most MPs will be eyeing their majorities after last time.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
This is delusional. The backstop needs to be agreed no matter what long-term relationship you want to negotiate, and the formulation that John McDonnell expresses in that clip will never be on offer.
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
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.
It's fair to say the Irish have a concern about their own border. It's in there because as members of the EU, which the UK no longer is, is in a stronger position than the UK and can use the EU to force terms.
Edit to add. Ireland and the EU are correct on the issue, of somewhat heavy handed. A soft land border needs to be a higher priority than avoiding customs checks in the Irish Sea.
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Yes you are right. We can cope with no deal if we have to without resorting to foraging for nuts and berries. The real issue is we are giving up a lot of very real benefits of membership in return for nothing. Not even a mess of potage.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Nadine Dorries said today that in a vnoc conservative mps would see that if TM won she would be there for another year so 90% (yes 90%) would vote her out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it delusion? Change "another year" to "into the next election" and most MPs will be eyeing their majorities after last time.
We are talking in the context of an immediate vnoc
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Yes you are right. We can cope with no deal if we have to without resorting to foraging for nuts and berries. The real issue is we are giving up a lot of very real benefits of membership in return for nothing. Not even a mess of potage.
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Yes you are right. We can cope with no deal if we have to without resorting to foraging for nuts and berries. The real issue is we are giving up a lot of very real benefits of membership in return for nothing. Not even a mess of potage.
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Which remains the only good argument the leave side have. For now.
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?
But what May was wanting wasnt really what the EU saw as on offer.
...the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum...
I mentioned it on here. Frequently. And was roundly mocked by my pains. John Major and Tony Blair went there and pointed the problem out.
I've mentioned before on here that there's a brain injury called "Hemispatial neglect". Patients with it will vehemently deny that one side of the world (say, the left side) exists. They will ignore food on one side of the plate, use a knife and fork in one hand but not the other, and so on.
I have been saying for years that there is a significant stratum of GB people that suffer from something similar wrt Northern Ireland. They will get agitated when it's mentioned and deny that it matters or should be considered.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Yes you are right. We can cope with no deal if we have to without resorting to foraging for nuts and berries. The real issue is we are giving up a lot of very real benefits of membership in return for nothing. Not even a mess of potage.
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Ignorant xenophobic fools = 52% Sane sensible folk = 48%
...the sudden concern for the Irish border is rubbish. Nobody thought about it before the referendum...
I mentioned it on here. Frequently. And was roundly mocked by my pains. John Major and Tony Blair went there and pointed the problem out.
I've mentioned before on here that there's a brain injury called "Hemispatial neglect". Patients with it will vehemently deny that one side of the world (say, the left side) exists. They will ignore food on one side of the plate, use a knife and fork in one hand but not the other, and so on.
I have been saying for years that there is a significant stratum of GB people that suffer from something similar wrt Northern Ireland. They will get agitated when it's mentioned and deny that it matters or should be considered.
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Yes you are right. We can cope with no deal if we have to without resorting to foraging for nuts and berries. The real issue is we are giving up a lot of very real benefits of membership in return for nothing. Not even a mess of potage.
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Ignorant xenophobic fools = 52% Sane sensible folk = 48%
For those interested in the Daily Mail's stance towards TM, look out for November 29th when the financial results of the parent company, DMGT, are published.
A few have commented on here about the Daily Mail's falling circulation (down low teens year on year, which is the key metric). That has been accelerating for some time. Less commented on is that the website is underperforming the other newspaper groups' websites as well and is down nearly 20% yoy in terms of traffic.
The newspapers have become, paradoxically, more important to DMGT as they have been disposing of other assets (now over 1/3 of profits). Falls in advertising and circulation revenues drop through at a high rate to profits (well over 50%) and there is a limit to how much more cost cutting can be done.
In my mind, if the newspaper results are bad, then I don't think DMGT's owner, Lord Rothermere, will give Georgie Greig much more time, especially if the view sticks that the DM's stance is driving away readers. His main wealth is in DMGT and the shares tend to react very badly to poor news on the newspapers. He will also be conscious of how the Express' circulation was fatally impacted by its dalliance with Blair in the 1990s (which helped the Mail).
ps some have commented that Dacre left in September and the circulation numbers looked weak then. That is not the key date - it was back in June when the news on Greig was announced. Many of the writers then realised they needed to become less Brexit-y to survive.
What? We've left with no deal? When did that happen?
The EU can't take sides in a dispute between two members. A50 negotiations are carried out with the EU explicitly abandoning the leaving party's interest and treating the leaving party as a third country.
Nadine Dorries said today that in a vnoc conservative mps would see that if TM won she would be there for another year so 90% (yes 90%) would vote her out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it delusion? Change "another year" to "into the next election" and most MPs will be eyeing their majorities after last time.
We are talking in the context of an immediate vnoc
Indeed but that is the point. The Prime Minister's chance of surviving a vonc depend not just on the Brexit deal but also on how MPs view their prospects if Theresa May leads them into a general election. If I were her, I'd be thinking about a pledge to step down in (say) 2020 in order to remove this factor.
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 deal is politically very useful for next year's Euro elections. Quitaly, Frortie, etc. won't look like a good idea when the UK is an IRL version of The Road.
This doom mongering is really going to back fire. The consequences of no deal mean significant interruption to pretty much everything. But to think a dynamic open capitalist economy trading in a globalised world is going to be anything other than annoyingly inconvenienced for a very small period of time, you are betting on the wrong horse.
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Yes you are right. We can cope with no deal if we have to without resorting to foraging for nuts and berries. The real issue is we are giving up a lot of very real benefits of membership in return for nothing. Not even a mess of potage.
Leave 52% Remain 48%
Ignorant xenophobic fools = 52% Sane sensible folk = 48%
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.
That's my reading of the position too. The EU has been barely containing its patience over two years of an essentially unhelpful and incoherent London government. The arrival of a basically friendly one would transform the situation, especially as Labour has no particularly difficult demands - permanent customs union is fine with us, we aren't bothered about new trade deals, modest restrictions on immigration would be acceptable. We'd like to be not too confined on state aid but I don't think that's a deal-killer for either side. The Irishg border issue simply goes away because we continue to trade essentially as we do today.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
What? We've left with no deal? When did that happen?
The EU can't take sides in a dispute between two members. A50 negotiations are carried out with the EU explicitly abandoning the leaving party's interest.
That doesn't mean we're not members.
I mean, jokes could be made about the ERG being outsize members, but your post was sort of incorrect.
There are other ports than Dover, that's just the most convenient under present arrangements. It would be surprising if the makers of Mars Bars weren't considering alternatives.
For those interested in the Daily Mail's stance towards TM, look out for November 29th when the financial results of the parent company, DMGT, are published.
A few have commented on here about the Daily Mail's falling circulation (down low teens year on year, which is the key metric). That has been accelerating for some time. Less commented on is that the website is underperforming the other newspaper groups' websites as well and is down nearly 20% yoy in terms of traffic.
The newspapers have become, paradoxically, more important to DMGT as they have been disposing of other assets (now over 1/3 of profits). Falls in advertising and circulation revenues drop through at a high rate to profits (well over 50%) and there is a limit to how much more cost cutting can be done.
In my mind, if the newspaper results are bad, then I don't think DMGT's owner, Lord Rothermere, will give Georgie Greig much more time, especially if the view sticks that the DM's stance is driving away readers. His main wealth is in DMGT and the shares tend to react very badly to poor news on the newspapers. He will also be conscious of how the Express' circulation was fatally impacted by its dalliance with Blair in the 1990s (which helped the Mail).
ps some have commented that Dacre left in September and the circulation numbers looked weak then. That is not the key date - it was back in June when the news on Greig was announced. Many of the writers then realised they needed to become less Brexit-y to survive.
Genuine question - is it the cover price or the advertising sales that generate most cash? If it's the latter then things might be going according to plan.
What? We've left with no deal? When did that happen?
The EU can't take sides in a dispute between two members. A50 negotiations are carried out with the EU explicitly abandoning the leaving party's interest.
That doesn't mean we're not members.
I mean, jokes could be made about the ERG being outsize members, but your post was sort of incorrect.
As far as these talks are concerned we are not members. Hence the oversized issue of Ireland in the talks.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
I don't understand. If re-entry is the backstop, then (unless the UK defaults on its international obligations) hard Brexit is impossible.
If the police investigation into the Leave campaign's financing and overspending results in the people responsible being charged during the next 3 months surely the 2016 referendum's validity will be even more strongly questioned. For this and several other very sound political reasons there has to be a second referendum/"Peoples Vote" and the Government needs to request the EU for at least a 2 month extension to the 29th March exit date as soon as possible to ensure this can happen.
Can somebody explain why the backstop isn't essentially: ability to trade with the EU in perpetuity, no FoM, no CAP, no CFP, no payments (beyond the £39b divorce bill), but... no say over the rules of the market into which we trade?
Essentially Norway/EEA with no payments and no FoM?
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
I don't understand. If re-entry is the backstop, then (unless the UK defaults on its international obligations) hard Brexit is impossible.
Imagine 3 years down the line, with a reentry backstop there are 3 outcomes.
1) The illusory permenant trade deal 2) Reentry and long term membership 3) Rentry and A50, this time with no negotiation and two years to implement no deal exit.
Whilst 3) might sound weird and would probably not be implemented exactly like that. It has the advantage of the U.K. unilaterally deciding its fate and together no Irish backstop issue at all.
What’s more it does not contradict the 2016 vote. We would have left. There could be a vote in 2021 on the 2 or three options.
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.
Wrong, even for Ireland the UK is 12% of its exports excluding Northern Ireland
Can somebody explain why the backstop isn't essentially: ability to trade with the EU in perpetuity, no FoM, no CAP, no CFP, no payments (beyond the £39b divorce bill), but... no say over the rules of the market into which we trade?
Essentially Norway/EEA with no payments and no FoM?
Pretty much.
There are a few details of course. The price for no CFP (or equivalent access to UK waters) is that fish products are outside the Customs Union, such that the EU will place tariffs on them.
Can somebody explain why the backstop isn't essentially: ability to trade with the EU in perpetuity, no FoM, no CAP, no CFP, no payments (beyond the £39b divorce bill), but... no say over the rules of the market into which we trade?
Essentially Norway/EEA with no payments and no FoM?
Under EEA (or efta) though we would have the umbrella of an existing set of trading agreements. We have nothing now.
Can somebody explain why the backstop isn't essentially: ability to trade with the EU in perpetuity, no FoM, no CAP, no CFP, no payments (beyond the £39b divorce bill), but... no say over the rules of the market into which we trade?
Essentially Norway/EEA with no payments and no FoM?
Pretty much.
There are a few details of course. The price for no CFP (or equivalent access to UK waters) is that fish products are outside the Customs Union, such that the EU will place tariffs on them.
And of course this is only the backstop.
Sounds pretty good. Aren't Norway objecting? Some might think that the EU won't want that as a permanent state of affairs...
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.
What an absurd point, No Deal still screws us far more than it screws the EU because it will hit a for bigger proportion if our economy
Very good header - it sums up the sense that none of the possible paths to a deal, no deal or no leave seem likely; yet one of them needs to happen.
My additional thoughts are:
1) the ERG wing of the party is a distraction. Even if they manage to get the votes for a no confidence vote, I think May will still win quite convincingly because none of the potential challengers have a vision of a deal that can pass Parliament, other than a no deal (which can pass due to inertia). Most of the party correctly identify as being an economic and political disaster and so will keep May in place.
2) a "People's vote" doesn't solve anything, other than give politicians an excuse not to do their job. Of the three possible referendum options ("no deal", "deal", "no leave"), only one would have any long-standing democratic legitimacy if it passed. Not leaving winning would not be seen as legitimate by close to half the country, who will soon demand a third referendum ("best of three"); no deal would remain an economic and political disaster that would now have the added benefit of being the people's fault as well as Parliament's, which would most likely lead to a future government striking a deal to re-join the customs union and/or single market. And I can't see the deal winning (unless alternative vote is used!) as it's too nuanced a compromise to campaign effectively for. It would be much simpler for Parliament to just pass the deal rather than getting it ratified via a referendum if that is the government's intended outcome.
3) given the number of rebels, I expect the deal to be rejected the first time it goes through parliament in December, which the markets will helpfully respond to by sending the pound through the floor as no deal becomes increasingly likely. Once that has happened, the leverage that Labour over May increases dramatically. Could they strike a deal of some sorts with May to get the deal (or some variant thereof) passed? Given that the policy differences between Labour's "position" and the deal are relatively small, could being promised a future general election after March 2019 (or something else) be sufficient?
If the police investigation into the Leave campaign's financing and overspending results in the people responsible being charged during the next 3 months surely the 2016 referendum's validity will be even more strongly questioned. For this and several other very sound political reasons there has to be a second referendum/"Peoples Vote" and the Government needs to request the EU for at least a 2 month extension to the 29th March exit date as soon as possible to ensure this can happen.
This is just desperation, can you not see that? The people have spoken and the decision made.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
I don't understand. If re-entry is the backstop, then (unless the UK defaults on its international obligations) hard Brexit is impossible.
Imagine 3 years down the line, with a reentry backstop there are 3 outcomes.
1) The illusory permenant trade deal 2) Reentry and long term membership 3) Rentry and A50, this time with no negotiation and two years to implement no deal exit.
Whilst 3) might sound weird and would probably not be implemented exactly like that. It has the advantage of the U.K. unilaterally deciding its fate and together no Irish backstop issue at all.
What’s more it does not contradict the 2016 vote. We would have left. There could be a vote in 2021 on the 2 or three options.
OK, so the Irish have ruled that out because (in their view) the EU should never agree/sanction a deal which would entitle the UK to legitimately create a hard border in Ireland. It also creates a weird set of incentives for the ultra-remain and ultra-no-deal camps, but I accept no system is perfect in that regard.
Nadine Dorries said today that in a vnoc conservative mps would see that if TM won she would be there for another year so 90% (yes 90%) would vote her out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it delusion? Change "another year" to "into the next election" and most MPs will be eyeing their majorities after last time.
We are talking in the context of an immediate vnoc
Indeed but that is the point. The Prime Minister's chance of surviving a vonc depend not just on the Brexit deal but also on how MPs view their prospects if Theresa May leads them into a general election. If I were her, I'd be thinking about a pledge to step down in (say) 2020 in order to remove this factor.
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.
What an absurd point, No Deal still screws us far more than it screws the EU because it will hit a for bigger proportion if our economy
The laws of politics, sanity and physics have been suspended.
No, I'm not bobbing on the ceiling, I'm just finding myself in agreement with Hyufd.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
"Give us what we want otherwise we'll shoot ourselves in the foot!"
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.
Wrong, even for Ireland the UK is 12% of its exports excluding Northern Ireland
Just over 1% of Irish exports go to Northern Ireland but 35% of Northern Irish exports go to the Republic. So even just looking at the Republic of Ireland No Deal Brexit screws us more than them
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
"Give us what we want otherwise we'll shoot ourselves in the foot!"
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.
What an absurd point, No Deal still screws us far more than it screws the EU because it will hit a for bigger proportion if our economy
The laws of politics, sanity and physics have been suspended.
No, I'm not bobbing on the ceiling, I'm just finding myself in agreement with Hyufd.
Currently just 32% back No Deal according to Sky and Survation this week, once the economy crashes so will Brexit and certainly hard Brexit
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
I don't understand. If re-entry is the backstop, then (unless the UK defaults on its international obligations) hard Brexit is impossible.
Imagine 3 years down the line, with a reentry backstop there are 3 outcomes.
1) The illusory permenant trade deal 2) Reentry and long term membership 3) Rentry and A50, this time with no negotiation and two years to implement no deal exit.
Whilst 3) might sound weird and would probably not be implemented exactly like that. It has the advantage of the U.K. unilaterally deciding its fate and together no Irish backstop issue at all.
What’s more it does not contradict the 2016 vote. We would have left. There could be a vote in 2021 on the 2 or three options.
OK, so the Irish have ruled that out because (in their view) the EU should never agree/sanction a deal which would entitle the UK to legitimately create a hard border in Ireland. It also creates a weird set of incentives for the ultra-remain and ultra-no-deal camps, but I accept no system is perfect in that regard.
This is just plain vanilla EU membership terms. There is no additional Irish border question. The incentives are no worse than the backstop.
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.
What an absurd point, No Deal still screws us far more than it screws the EU because it will hit a for bigger proportion if our economy
The laws of politics, sanity and physics have been suspended.
No, I'm not bobbing on the ceiling, I'm just finding myself in agreement with Hyufd.
Currently just 32% back No Deal according to Sky and Survation this week, once the economy crashes so will Brexit and certainly hard Brexit
Nothing to do with that, just your making the obvious point that whatever the raw numbers it's the relative volume of trade that's important.
Once we go back to polling numbers, you're on your own again.
The backstop doesn't arise if we sign up to permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment. We're fine with both - it's not a problem for Labour, or the DUP, or Sinn Fein, or the Irish Government. The ONLY people who dislike it are the fantasists who think that brilliant trade deals around the world await us if we walk away from unhindered trade with our neighbours.
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
"Give us what we want otherwise we'll shoot ourselves in the foot!"
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.
What an absurd point, No Deal still screws us far more than it screws the EU because it will hit a for bigger proportion if our economy
The laws of politics, sanity and physics have been suspended.
No, I'm not bobbing on the ceiling, I'm just finding myself in agreement with Hyufd.
Currently just 32% back No Deal according to Sky and Survation this week, once the economy crashes so will Brexit and certainly hard Brexit
There was something not right about that Sky poll - it was "a representative sample of Sky customers". I would be slightly surprised if you could construct a nationally representative poll from purely Sky customers.
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.
Wrong, even for Ireland the UK is 12% of its exports excluding Northern Ireland
Just over 1% of Irish exports go to Northern Ireland but 35% of Northern Irish exports go to the Republic. So even just looking at the Republic of Ireland No Deal Brexit screws us more than them
The backstop has to exist until the final deal is done. Whether it is ever used or not it has to be in the withdrawal agreement.
Reentry is a better backstop.
What's the EU's incentive to agree a new partnership if they can sit on their hands for two years?
Because we can immediately trigger hard Brexit.
I don't understand. If re-entry is the backstop, then (unless the UK defaults on its international obligations) hard Brexit is impossible.
Imagine 3 years down the line, with a reentry backstop there are 3 outcomes.
1) The illusory permenant trade deal 2) Reentry and long term membership 3) Rentry and A50, this time with no negotiation and two years to implement no deal exit.
Whilst 3) might sound weird and would probably not be implemented exactly like that. It has the advantage of the U.K. unilaterally deciding its fate and together no Irish backstop issue at all.
What’s more it does not contradict the 2016 vote. We would have left. There could be a vote in 2021 on the 2 or three options.
OK, so the Irish have ruled that out because (in their view) the EU should never agree/sanction a deal which would entitle the UK to legitimately create a hard border in Ireland. It also creates a weird set of incentives for the ultra-remain and ultra-no-deal camps, but I accept no system is perfect in that regard.
This is just plain vanilla EU membership terms. There is no additional Irish border question. The incentives are no worse than the backstop.
I simply don't agree. You're creating a new article 50 style right, but it is definitely something new - let's call it Article 50A. The consequence of triggering Article 50A is inexorably a hard border in Ireland. So you have definitely created a new Irish border question.
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.
What an absurd point, No Deal still screws us far more than it screws the EU because it will hit a for bigger proportion if our economy
The laws of politics, sanity and physics have been suspended.
No, I'm not bobbing on the ceiling, I'm just finding myself in agreement with Hyufd.
Currently just 32% back No Deal according to Sky and Survation this week, once the economy crashes so will Brexit and certainly hard Brexit
There was something not right about that Sky poll - it was "a representative sample of Sky customers". I would be slightly surprised if you could construct a nationally representative poll from purely Sky customers.
Comments
And if they are maybe they would be willing to do something and maybe they wouldn't.
And if they are are willing to do something maybe it would please the ERG and maybe it wouldn't.
While on your side you are willing to risk no Brexit, economic chaos, a split Conservative party and a Corbyn majority government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWWcOSpmJdw
And that's the only conceivable path Jo Johnson would have to becoming PM.
Essentially we'd end up with amicable associate membership which would be a bit less good than membership but not really very different. Most people in both the EU and, I suspect, the British electorate would feel the nightmare was over. The ERG, not so much - oh, well.
They could call it the hokey cokey clause: if this happened we would literally be in, out, in, out!
However parliament will not,
Therefore you have to deal with reality not just carry on regardless.
If as a government you do not have the numbers, something has to change.
The conservative party has always been ruthless and pragmatic about holding onto power.
As what happened in 1990 a change from Thatcher to Major changed the parties fortunes overnight.
Major was fairly unknown to the wider public at the time.
A change of leader could change the dynamic.
To many not interested in politics a change of leader is a change of government.
Labour would prefer May to a new Conservative leader as the change takes away one of their most potent weapons in opposition.
He needs first to convincingly rubbish no deal and persuade key Tory members to accept that no deal is very damaging. Then he needs to argue that Remain is better for the time being than Mrs May's abomination of a deal avoiding vassal status, with perhaps some ERG members supporting him in that. There is path for him but it's very difficult.
At Wednesday lunchtime, the DExEU team tried to politely inform those making the arrangements that their minister would likely not be travelling. Then a senior Downing Street official offered to let Raab out of cabinet early so he could fly via helicopter across the Channel, promising him a movie-style entrance to the Barnier photo opportunity. This was rebuffed.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
But really I suppose 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 is more appropriate when you think of the catastrophic mess we are in.
This is because leavers like me now simply don’t trust her and her civil service advisors. Therefore we have no confidence as to how subsequent negotiations may develop with the Trade Deal because there are too many hostages to fortune in the Withdrawl Deal.
Knowing that there will be a genuine Leaver in charge, supported by a new negotiating team including non career civil servants could build enough confidence to take the risk. Sort of like Nixon and China.
Maybe just enough MPs might think that too?
And a few cosmetic and probably achievable minor changes to the Withdrawl Deal, like removing the exemption from U.K. income tax for EU staff pensioners would at least be be a demonstrable signal that the new regime is not “part of the club.”
Meanwhile the DM is putting the boot into BoJo, associating him with Farage, who is now toxic waste for a variety of reasons, not least the Russia/Assange connection. The grey suits are also rallying round.
TM has been able to shape the choice: this deal, no deal or referendum. If the Brexiteers can't handle it and end with a no deal, then the Tories will be massacred in the aftermath. A referendum would see Brexit defeated and the Tories laid waste in a subsequent GE. So the calculation will be on this deal... and a bit of face saving and back tracking (and a bucketful of arm twisting) and the number of rebels might be less than 20 or so, which means that the arithmetic is a lot closer than it looks right now... I think its 50/50 she gets it.
Counterintuitively, I don't think most Leavers care about sovereignty because that implies choices and trade offs. They like the idea of sovereignty and the symbols of it. But they are not interested in the exercise
I've mentioned before on here that there's a brain injury called "Hemispatial neglect". Patients with it will vehemently deny that one side of the world (say, the left side) exists. They will ignore food on one side of the plate, use a knife and fork in one hand but not the other, and so on.
I have been saying for years that there is a significant stratum of GB people that suffer from something similar wrt Northern Ireland. They will get agitated when it's mentioned and deny that it matters or should be considered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispatial_neglect
PS. There's a typo in that post - it should be "uninspiring".
.................................................................................
You really are bonkers, aren't you ?
..................................................................................
He reads Boris duplicity well but it is not going to happen
Leavers may have been studiously ignoring it I suppose.
It is going to be a huge event with massive publicity, interviews with EU leaders, and much more
This could be a pivotal moment
P.S. Received the book, starting on it this weekend. Thanks again :-)
I suppose he might keep quiet over the weekend, as what's the point making an announcement until MPs return on Monday.
Nadine Dorries said today that in a vnoc conservative mps would see that if TM won she would be there for another year so 90% (yes 90%) would vote her out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aARaYjgm_rA
PS (NO CGI Brilliantly costructed scene)
The democratic deficit of having trade rules that we don't help to draft is a snag, as FF and Jonathan say, but it's a snag inherent to having Brexit at all. When we've all calmed down I can imagine renewed membership being discussed in 10 years' time, but for now we have to live with it, and it's actually very rare that Britain has dissented from trade rules that the EU wanted - they normally relate to standards (should pollution limits on cars be X or Y?), and industry has much the same preferences in Britain and the Continent.
McDonnell is a somewhat rare breed - a left-wing pragmatist. In theory he'd like a socialist economy with lots of worker control. In practice he's willing to settle for what's practical.
I reckon no announcement before Monday afternoon - not that I am sure there 47 letters
I dont want a no deal and im quite willing to chastise those who do for encouraging this short lived but huge interruption we will suffer.
But dont for a minute believe that having pushed us to a no deal we will come back crawling.
Edit to add. Ireland and the EU are correct on the issue, of somewhat heavy handed. A soft land border needs to be a higher priority than avoiding customs checks in the Irish Sea.
Remain 48%
Blame Carson. And de Valera.
Sane sensible folk = 48%
And in the north it was Craig, not so much Carson.
A few have commented on here about the Daily Mail's falling circulation (down low teens year on year, which is the key metric). That has been accelerating for some time. Less commented on is that the website is underperforming the other newspaper groups' websites as well and is down nearly 20% yoy in terms of traffic.
The newspapers have become, paradoxically, more important to DMGT as they have been disposing of other assets (now over 1/3 of profits). Falls in advertising and circulation revenues drop through at a high rate to profits (well over 50%) and there is a limit to how much more cost cutting can be done.
In my mind, if the newspaper results are bad, then I don't think DMGT's owner, Lord Rothermere, will give Georgie Greig much more time, especially if the view sticks that the DM's stance is driving away readers. His main wealth is in DMGT and the shares tend to react very badly to poor news on the newspapers. He will also be conscious of how the Express' circulation was fatally impacted by its dalliance with Blair in the 1990s (which helped the Mail).
ps some have commented that Dacre left in September and the circulation numbers looked weak then. That is not the key date - it was back in June when the news on Greig was announced. Many of the writers then realised they needed to become less Brexit-y to survive.
I mean, jokes could be made about the ERG being outsize members, but your post was sort of incorrect.
Essentially Norway/EEA with no payments and no FoM?
1) The illusory permenant trade deal
2) Reentry and long term membership
3) Rentry and A50, this time with no negotiation and two years to implement no deal exit.
Whilst 3) might sound weird and would probably not be implemented exactly like that. It has the advantage of the U.K. unilaterally deciding its fate and together no Irish backstop issue at all.
What’s more it does not contradict the 2016 vote. We would have left. There could be a vote in 2021 on the 2 or three options.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland
There are a few details of course. The price for no CFP (or equivalent access to UK waters) is that fish products are outside the Customs Union, such that the EU will place tariffs on them.
And of course this is only the backstop.
My additional thoughts are:
1) the ERG wing of the party is a distraction. Even if they manage to get the votes for a no confidence vote, I think May will still win quite convincingly because none of the potential challengers have a vision of a deal that can pass Parliament, other than a no deal (which can pass due to inertia). Most of the party correctly identify as being an economic and political disaster and so will keep May in place.
2) a "People's vote" doesn't solve anything, other than give politicians an excuse not to do their job. Of the three possible referendum options ("no deal", "deal", "no leave"), only one would have any long-standing democratic legitimacy if it passed. Not leaving winning would not be seen as legitimate by close to half the country, who will soon demand a third referendum ("best of three"); no deal would remain an economic and political disaster that would now have the added benefit of being the people's fault as well as Parliament's, which would most likely lead to a future government striking a deal to re-join the customs union and/or single market. And I can't see the deal winning (unless alternative vote is used!) as it's too nuanced a compromise to campaign effectively for. It would be much simpler for Parliament to just pass the deal rather than getting it ratified via a referendum if that is the government's intended outcome.
3) given the number of rebels, I expect the deal to be rejected the first time it goes through parliament in December, which the markets will helpfully respond to by sending the pound through the floor as no deal becomes increasingly likely. Once that has happened, the leverage that Labour over May increases dramatically. Could they strike a deal of some sorts with May to get the deal (or some variant thereof) passed? Given that the policy differences between Labour's "position" and the deal are relatively small, could being promised a future general election after March 2019 (or something else) be sufficient?
No, I'm not bobbing on the ceiling, I'm just finding myself in agreement with Hyufd.
https://fullfact.org/europe/irish-border-trade/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I
Once we go back to polling numbers, you're on your own again.
Not saying it’s good. I am saying it’s better.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/mars-bars-brexit-no-deal-gove