Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mr. Johnson becomes favourite once again to succeed Mrs. May

24567

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,628
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Labour will abstain in a second vote. For the first vote I suspect they would vote against the plan - as its the best approach to ramp up the pressure and see what gives / blows
    By that second vote, Corbyn will be facing a new PM at PMQs....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    edited November 2018

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    BTW Vince is playing with himself isnt he.

    Even has one of his handful of MPs backing May Fookup
    He certainly is, I've had to quit the party over his reckless threat to vote down the deal. Which is a shame because I the local Lib Dems round here are a great bunch.
    My guess is that LD MPs will end up voting for the deal.
    Beyond Stephen lloyd I'd say that was in doubt. Do you think they will even if a "people's vote" amendment has not been secured ?
  • Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    Neither of us have any idea how the ECJ will rule on Wightman. Lots of legal opinions have been published, to support either one interpretation or the other.

    There's som expensive, unpublished advice on recovability, but it's exclusive to HMG. Who are the people running around like blue-arsed flies raising all sorts of risible objections to the matter being escalated to the ECJ, refusing to allow their arguments to be published, and generally treating the escalation to the ECJ as it it's a national disaster to be avoided at all costs.

    Which rather suggests that HMG is less sanguine than you are that the Wightman case is doomed to fail. Me, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Which isn't the same as "putting my faith" in the possibility - but, then, no-one is actually doing that.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,412

    kle4 said:

    A consequence of him being relatively quiet in the last week?

    Hot on the heels of trying to secure a trade deal with Oklahoma, David davis comes out with another cracker ...
    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1064504969917857793

    I'm so glad no one is peddling simple solutions to this anymore, we've come so far in two years.
    Time to start arresting Leavers for treason.

    He’s either very thick or a shit Manchurian candidate.
    I'm looking forward to the Brexit show trials. First up Cameron, then Johnson then Corbyn.
    Bloody liberal democrats ;-)
    I'm surprised at the lack of Osbourne in the list of accused - he's more responsible in many ways:

    1) Winning the election so the referendum wasn't dumped as the Lib Dems returned
    2) He's threatened disasters / Brexit budget....
    3) Austerity....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,177
    edited November 2018
    TOPPING said:


    Rubbish. The Tories themselves are saying that a better deal can be achieved so why on earth wouldn't Labour advance the argument that if there is a better deal to be had, they are the ones who should be charged to achieve it?

    I wasn't saying Labour could not make that argument at all, so your accusation of rubbish is entirely misplaced.

    I wasn't saying Labour were the only ones making that argument. Indeed, people in the Cabinet are making that argument too. I even said 'there is an argument they should not vote for the deal in order to [prevent no deal] because other options are available' which I would say lays out pretty clearly I said they could make the argument.

    I wasn't saying Labour should not make the argument that another deal could be achieved (I do disagree it would be easy, but that's a separate issue). I was saying that voting against the deal or abstaining on it should not be done on the basis it ensures the Tories 'own' Brexit, which appeared to a factor bigjohn was considering.

    I have been consistent that there are good reasons to vote down this deal. I would not say Labour are obliged to accept it is deal or no deal and they cannot argue for a better deal. If even Cabinet Members say otherwise why couldn't Labour say that?

    But party electoral prospects and who gets blamed are not factors here.

    Or to put it in short: Rubbish, I never said that.
  • TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    Why do you only seem to care who 'owns' Brexit. Labour have the ability to categorically prevent no deal. There is an argument that they should not vote for the deal in order to prevent that because other no deal options are available (how realistically is up for debate) but screwing the Tories, or having them screw themselves, should not matter in the slightest. If it was deal or no deal Labour will be crucial, and whoever puts them in that position Labour will be accountable for their own choice.

    At present they are rejecting the choice as being that binary, which certainly makes it simpler for them. But the Tories getting all or most blame hardly matters here.
    Rubbish. The Tories themselves are saying that a better deal can be achieved so why on earth wouldn't Labour advance the argument that if there is a better deal to be had, they are the ones who should be charged to achieve it?
    ERG Tories are.
  • Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,177

    Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    Oof, it'd be a bumpy ride to get to that outcome, and a series of very tense votes no doubt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,177
    Scott_P said:
    Well the good thing for them is that if this is only about the deal May has delivered be unacceptable it can get voted down and more letters can go in then. Not having a contest means May is still not secure.
  • Scott_P said:
    ‪The ERG confirming my comparison of them to an impotent porn star. In fact they are more like a eunuch wanting to be a porn star. ‬
  • Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote?
    Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:


    Rubbish. The Tories themselves are saying that a better deal can be achieved so why on earth wouldn't Labour advance the argument that if there is a better deal to be had, they are the ones who should be charged to achieve it?

    I wasn't saying Labour could not make that argument at all, so your accusation of rubbish is entirely misplaced.

    I wasn't saying Labour were the only ones making that argument. Indeed, people in the Cabinet are making that argument too. I even said 'there is an argument they should not vote for the deal in order to [prevent no deal] because other options are available' which I would say lays out pretty clearly I said they could make the argument.

    I wasn't saying Labour should not make the argument that another deal could be achieved (I do disagree it would be easy, but that's a separate issue). I was saying that voting against the deal or abstaining on it should not be done on the basis it ensures the Tories 'own' Brexit, which appeared to a factor bigjohn was considering.

    I have been consistent that there are good reasons to vote down this deal. I would not say Labour are obliged to accept it is deal or no deal and they cannot argue for a better deal. If even Cabinet Members say otherwise why couldn't Labour say that?

    But party electoral prospects and who gets blamed are not factors here.

    Or to put it in short: Rubbish, I never said that.
    Fair enough. Own and own!! :smile:

    The point is that whatever Lab does or doesn't do, the ERG has ensured that they (the Cons) will "own" Brexit. If the ERG rowed in behind the deal then it would at least give Lab pause to consider what they would be voting for, but they have been given cover by the ERG so they have a free rein. They are not doing it IMO so that the Cons "own" Brexit, but because it will cause chaos of which one possible if not probable outcome is a GE.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,690
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    Why do you only seem to care who 'owns' Brexit. Labour have the ability to categorically prevent no deal. There is an argument that they should not vote for the deal in order to prevent that because other no deal options are available (how realistically is up for debate) but screwing the Tories, or having them screw themselves, should not matter in the slightest. If it was deal or no deal Labour will be crucial, and whoever puts them in that position Labour will be accountable for their own choice.

    At present they are rejecting the choice as being that binary, which certainly makes it simpler for them. But the Tories getting all or most blame hardly matters here.
    It matters.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    Why do you only seem to care who 'owns' Brexit. Labour have the ability to categorically prevent no deal. There is an argument that they should not vote for the deal in order to prevent that because other no deal options are available (how realistically is up for debate) but screwing the Tories, or having them screw themselves, should not matter in the slightest. If it was deal or no deal Labour will be crucial, and whoever puts them in that position Labour will be accountable for their own choice.

    At present they are rejecting the choice as being that binary, which certainly makes it simpler for them. But the Tories getting all or most blame hardly matters here.
    It matters.
    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,910
    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited November 2018

    Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    I think that Big G has made a very important point on this, namely that a lot depends on what amendments are voted on and in what order.

    Suppose, for example, the LibDems propose an amendment that mandates the government to hold a Remain/This Deal referendum before ratifying the deal. If that amendment is defeated, then they and other 2nd People's Vote fans have to consider whether to maintain their opposition to the deal.

    Similarly, there will no doubt be attempts to rule out 'No Deal' (although I'm unclear how the mechanics of that would work). Let's assume that some such attempt is successful - the ERGers then have to figure out whether they maintain their opposition to the deal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    It wouldn't be voting for a No Deal Brexit. It would be voting to be allowed to negotiate a Labour Brexit. If the ERG think they can do it, why not Lab?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    BTW Vince is playing with himself isnt he.

    Even has one of his handful of MPs backing May Fookup
    He certainly is, I've had to quit the party over his reckless threat to vote down the deal. Which is a shame because I the local Lib Dems round here are a great bunch.
    My guess is that LD MPs will end up voting for the deal.

    Do you mean that at least two LD MPs will do so, rebelliously - which is very likely - or that they will be whipped to do so, which seems very unlikely?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    Yes Mickey Fab's plan makes perfect sense.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    BTW Vince is playing with himself isnt he.

    Even has one of his handful of MPs backing May Fookup
    He certainly is, I've had to quit the party over his reckless threat to vote down the deal. Which is a shame because I the local Lib Dems round here are a great bunch.
    My guess is that LD MPs will end up voting for the deal.

    Do you mean that at least two LD MPs will do so, rebelliously - which is very likely - or that they will be whipped to do so, which seems very unlikely?
    Who is the second - Lamb ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    Notch said:

    Of all the possible futures being considered, the one where Boris Johnson takes over as PM from Theresa May is one of the most improbable. He's not up and coming, he hasn't got an image of experience and competence, a lot of people would be pleased if the last thing they did in politics was to ensure he didn't get the job, and he'd never get past the "War Book 2". (Disclosure: he's the only one of the main possible contenders for the Tory leadership I'm red on, but I'm very happy with that.)

    Meanwhile David Davis is calling for a Commons vote on May's proposed WA before she meets EU27 leaders. He's right, and I hope the opposition parties join the call.

    He is only doing well because he is in hiding and not opening his mouth, when he has to come out in the open he will ensure he has no chance.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    BTW Vince is playing with himself isnt he.

    Even has one of his handful of MPs backing May Fookup
    He certainly is, I've had to quit the party over his reckless threat to vote down the deal. Which is a shame because I the local Lib Dems round here are a great bunch.
    My guess is that LD MPs will end up voting for the deal.

    Vince on R4 this morning said clearly they would not.

    Is he lying ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    BTW Vince is playing with himself isnt he.

    Even has one of his handful of MPs backing May Fookup
    He certainly is, I've had to quit the party over his reckless threat to vote down the deal. Which is a shame because I the local Lib Dems round here are a great bunch.
    My guess is that LD MPs will end up voting for the deal.

    Do you mean that at least two LD MPs will do so, rebelliously - which is very likely - or that they will be whipped to do so, which seems very unlikely?
    Who is the second - Lamb ?
    I don't think so. It is certainly a pro-Leave constituency, but it has long made peace with its MP.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited November 2018
    TGOHF said:

    Vince on R4 this morning said clearly they would not.

    Is he lying ?

    That's the Vince who signed a pledge saying he'd vote against increasing tuition fees, right? That Vince?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,690
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    I have come to the conclusion that less than 48 BREXIT loons have the ability to write letters full stop.

    JRM has made himself look like a right Knob
  • Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote?
    Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.

    As I say, I think the likeliest scenario is that there will be no general election, no referendum and no change of PM. In that case, all that will be left is May's Deal or No Deal. If it comes to that, the Labour manifesto gives Labour MPs the cover to vote for the least worst of those two options.

    I'd go further and say that the really smart thing politically for Labour to do if that is where things up would be to back it very clearly and very reluctantly on the basis that the country has to come first and the No Deal the Tory right advocates is unthinkable.

    I doubt that will happen, though.

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    I have come to the conclusion that less than 48 BREXIT loons have the ability to write letters full stop.

    JRM has made himself look like a right Knob
    Indeed, the consideration that fewer than 48 of them can actually read and write is a facet of the episode that has received too little exploration.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,910
    Pulpstar said:


    Yes Mickey Fab's plan makes perfect sense.

    Okay, I'm trying to work out if you are agreeing with Michael Fabricant or making one of your usual sarcastic comments.

    Please enlighten us all.

  • TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,683
    edited November 2018
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    What would be the point of that? Surely the VoNC stuff is to destroy the deal by destroying Theresa. If parliament destroys the deal then surely Theresa's survival is neither here nor there. Or is this also about personal vengeance?
  • stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    What would be the point of that? Surely the VoNC stuff is to destroy the deal by destroying Theresa. If parliament destroys the deal then surely Theresa's survival is neither here nor there. Or is this also about personal vengeance?
    I think it's part of the fantasy that if only we had Boris Johnson David Davis Dominic Raab someone else negotiating Brexit, unicorns would leap out of the woodwork.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited November 2018
    Anazina said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    I have come to the conclusion that less than 48 BREXIT loons have the ability to write letters full stop.

    JRM has made himself look like a right Knob
    Indeed, the consideration that fewer than 48 of them can actually read and write is a facet of the episode that has received too little exploration.

    who knew that trying to lead a bunch of assorted wingnuts would be so tricky?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.

    So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotaite a deal that isn't as shite as May's....

    For precisely this reason the ECJ are going to rule it is only revocable by agreement.
    Well of course they are. Another bit of stupidity by Remainers, putting their faith in an option that was never going to fly.

    For all the shite that ERG are getting right now, they look like strategic titans compared to Remainers.
    They need to go with Mickey Fab's plan. It is the last chance to save a hard as nails Brexit.
    Edit: Hardcore Brexiteers on Twitter seem to be worried with Mickey Fab's plan that the vote might actually get through with Labour help. An unfounded worry right now I think.
    Mickey Fab's Plan. Get May out when it fails in the House. Then install Geoffrey Cox, for a couple of years. Have a far less febrile contest before a 2022 election.

    I really can't see it getting through without a Labour 3-line whip to abstain though. No sign of that - yet. But it's what I'd do if I was Labour. Let the Tories tear themselves to bits over "their" Brexit.
    Corbyn won't have the brains to work out that he should abstain. It's 4D chess that's being played by the EU and May here, Corbyn is playing Tiddlywinks.
    Grand Master stuff from Jezza IMO

    Tories own BREXIT
    BTW Vince is playing with himself isnt he.

    Even has one of his handful of MPs backing May Fookup
    He certainly is, I've had to quit the party over his reckless threat to vote down the deal. Which is a shame because I the local Lib Dems round here are a great bunch.
    My guess is that LD MPs will end up voting for the deal.

    Do you mean that at least two LD MPs will do so, rebelliously - which is very likely - or that they will be whipped to do so, which seems very unlikely?
    Who is the second - Lamb ?
    Indeed. Lamb wouldn't be surprising, Lloyd is a given, and then there's the unpredictable flakiness factor applying across the PLDP. But more than two or three would be eyebrow-raising.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,746
    Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear
    Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen
    Football's still the roughest thing on campus
    And the kids here still respect the college dean

    And I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee
    A place where even squares can have a ball.
    We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse
    And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all

    And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all
    In Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    stodge said:

    Pulpstar said:


    Yes Mickey Fab's plan makes perfect sense.

    Okay, I'm trying to work out if you are agreeing with Michael Fabricant or making one of your usual sarcastic comments.

    Please enlighten us all.

    Mickey Fab's goal is to try and end up with "No deal". It's not where I personally would go, but it is what he and many in the ERG want.
    He proposes waiting on the VONC till after May is defeated in the Commons, as if the VONC goes before then May becomes invincible and she can use Labour votes to get the deal through (In exchange for a GE, people's vote, single market forever or anything else Corbyn wants).
    After the deal is defeated May is much weaker, a VONC is more likely to be won. Of course the ERG have to pull the trigger at that point - that's up to them but it's the best plan for their desired outcome (No deal crash out). Having May win a VONC at any time before she's piped up about any potential "people's vote" (Which she'll only do if she's lost a HoC vote) and certainly is more inclined to do if she is effectively invincible to get Labour votes to get her plan over the line would be disastrous for the ERG.

    Hence Mickey Fab's plan is the best one for them to achieve their goal of "No Deal" with - which is by far my least preferred outcome of the whole shebang.
  • TOPPING said:

    Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    It wouldn't be voting for a No Deal Brexit. It would be voting to be allowed to negotiate a Labour Brexit. If the ERG think they can do it, why not Lab?
    Because they're lying, fools, or both.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting contribution earlier from Wulfrun_Phil who opined theose looking for a VoNC against May might wait until the Deal was formally voted down in the Commons and would only send in letters IF May refused to quit.

    IF May walks voluntarily after losing the Deal vote, there would be a full leadership contest without a VoNC which would be a different situation and those whose loyalty to may is such they would support her in a VoNC would be able to move as they saw fit.

    IF the Deal is lost and May refuses then to go the letters would go in and the VoNC would be called - it's a one-off opportunity and rather like comedy it's all in the timing.

    That makes much more sense than having the VoNC before the vote on the Deal.

    I have come to the conclusion that less than 48 BREXIT loons have the ability to write letters full stop.

    JRM has made himself look like a right Knob
    Indeed, the consideration that fewer than 48 of them can actually read and write is a facet of the episode that has received too little exploration.

    who knew that trying to lead a bunch of assorted wingnuts would be so tricky?
    I know, I was as surprised as you were.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    Or proposed a necessary intervention in Syria to save countless lives.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited November 2018

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    Yes. But for the ERG. Who have a) told us that no deal would be fine; and b) said they could get a better deal.

    As I said earlier, the ERG have given cause for Lab to vote against the deal.

    Plus you may happen to think that no deal would be a catastrophe but that is simply a political view it is not an objective fact.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
  • Pulpstar said:

    stodge said:

    Pulpstar said:


    Yes Mickey Fab's plan makes perfect sense.

    Okay, I'm trying to work out if you are agreeing with Michael Fabricant or making one of your usual sarcastic comments.

    Please enlighten us all.

    Mickey Fab's goal is to try and end up with "No deal". It's not where I personally would go, but it is what he and many in the ERG want.
    He proposes waiting on the VONC till after May is defeated in the Commons, as if the VONC goes before then May becomes invincible and she can use Labour votes to get the deal through (In exchange for a GE, people's vote, single market forever or anything else Corbyn wants).
    After the deal is defeated May is much weaker, a VONC is more likely to be won. Of course the ERG have to pull the trigger at that point - that's up to them but it's the best plan for their desired outcome (No deal crash out). Having May win a VONC at any time before she's piped up about any potential "people's vote" (Which she'll only do if she's lost a HoC vote) and certainly is more inclined to do if she is effectively invincible to get Labour votes to get her plan over the line would be disastrous for the ERG.

    Hence Mickey Fab's plan is the best one for them to achieve their goal of "No Deal" with - which is by far my least preferred outcome of the whole shebang.
    The implication is that MF does not care what happens to the people of this country.

    Hmm....'MF' indeed.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
  • philiph said:
    That's Lord Lilley to you
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    Nothing changes during transition, and Corbyn will extend the transition to forever. A hard Brexit Tory might actually leave but th deal bats any decision into 2022. Meanwhile it does actually take us out the EU thus honouring the result. I honestly can't see the problem. The best part is we lose a whole bunch of UKIP MEPs embarrasing us in the EU parliament from day one !
  • TOPPING said:

    Yes. But for the ERG. Who have a) told us that no deal would be fine; and b) said they could get a better deal.

    As I said earlier, the ERG have given cause for Lab to vote against the deal.

    Plus you may happen to think that no deal would be a catastrophe but that is simply a political view it is not an objective fact.

    It's as close to an objective fact as any prediction can ever be, but whilst I take your point that the ERG have given Labour some political cover on this, I don't think that means that Labour have a Get Out of Jail Free card on owning at least some of the consequences.

    A lot will depend on how clear the alternatives to the deal are.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited November 2018

    philiph said:
    That's Lord Lilley to you
    Or Peter. Not sure I have ever addressed a Lord as Lord, although I do address a Lady as Lady xyz
  • Scott_P said:
    Nice line, but as they pay money in and claim it back as research expenses, it goes rather deeper than that.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    Nothing changes during transition, and Corbyn will extend the transition to forever. A hard Brexit Tory might actually leave but th deal bats any decision into 2022. Meanwhile it does actually take us out the EU thus honouring the result. I honestly can't see the problem. The best part is we lose a whole bunch of UKIP MEPs embarrasing us in the EU parliament from day one !
    100% agreed.
  • Liz McInnes

    Verified account

    @LizMcInnes_MP
    2h2 hours ago
    More
    Tory MP right outside my office shouting into his phone “THIS IS STRICTLY EMBARGOED!” Think he needs to learn to be more discreet but watch out for developments this afternoon.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    TOPPING said:

    Yes. But for the ERG. Who have a) told us that no deal would be fine; and b) said they could get a better deal.

    As I said earlier, the ERG have given cause for Lab to vote against the deal.

    Plus you may happen to think that no deal would be a catastrophe but that is simply a political view it is not an objective fact.

    It's as close to an objective fact as any prediction can ever be, but whilst I take your point that the ERG have given Labour some political cover on this, I don't think that means that Labour have a Get Out of Jail Free card on owning at least some of the consequences.

    A lot will depend on how clear the alternatives to the deal are.
    I wouldn't have thought the alternatives will be known before the vote. Or did you mean JRM's alternative?

    Lab can't be in a position whereby they say "there is no alternative we must vote for the government's deal" when a non-trivial proportion of the government's own MPs believe there is an alternative and will be voting against it. It would be political suicide.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,746
    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,690
    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    I guess as a Remainer you are happy to give up UK sovereignty which is exactly what this deal does.

    Labour would be mad to not oppose that.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    Nothing changes during transition, and Corbyn will extend the transition to forever. A hard Brexit Tory might actually leave but th deal bats any decision into 2022. Meanwhile it does actually take us out the EU thus honouring the result. I honestly can't see the problem. The best part is we lose a whole bunch of UKIP MEPs embarrasing us in the EU parliament from day one !
    Two major problems I think. First, ongoing uncertainty. It’s possibke that the transition will extend until forever (at least the 2099 anticipated in the WA) but probably only with short extensions. For example the June 2020 review date probably results in extension to 31 Dec 2021 because a Tory government won’t contemplate extending beyond the next scheduled GE. As long as that happens, there’s a poisonous effect on investment decisions. Maybe no visible mass flight of international businesses, but a year on year decline.

    Second, Britain is effectively held in an arrangement by a foreign power against its will - or at least that’s how the UKIP heirs can portray it in increasingly nasty nationalist campaigns blaming the foreign ‘other’ for all ills. Based on past behaviour in relation to the EU, once the Tories are in opposition you can expect this to be the central core of their offering. It’s unlikely to make the country a nicer, more harmonious place, to put it mildly.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,910
    Pulpstar said:


    Mickey Fab's goal is to try and end up with "No deal". It's not where I personally would go, but it is what he and many in the ERG want.
    He proposes waiting on the VONC till after May is defeated in the Commons, as if the VONC goes before then May becomes invincible and she can use Labour votes to get the deal through (In exchange for a GE, people's vote, single market forever or anything else Corbyn wants).
    After the deal is defeated May is much weaker, a VONC is more likely to be won. Of course the ERG have to pull the trigger at that point - that's up to them but it's the best plan for their desired outcome (No deal crash out). Having May win a VONC at any time before she's piped up about any potential "people's vote" (Which she'll only do if she's lost a HoC vote) and certainly is more inclined to do if she is effectively invincible to get Labour votes to get her plan over the line would be disastrous for the ERG.

    Hence Mickey Fab's plan is the best one for them to achieve their goal of "No Deal" with - which is by far my least preferred outcome of the whole shebang.

    Fabricant and others clearly believe some of the predictions/comments about a "No Deal" are as realistic as the predictions made by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor about the consequences of a LEAVE vote in 2016.

    The Carney briefing for example can be seen as an example of this version of "Project Fear" and the systematic drip-drip of dire warnings in the same vein.

    This is the basic tactic being used to shore up May and the Deal - the calamitous consequences of a No Deal are so terrible that it must not be allowed to happen and the only way for that is to support the Prime Minister and the Deal.

    That's fine if you believe it - if you think the prognostications of disaster are over-cooked then you might take a different view and perhaps based on the experiences of June 2016 onward you'd be right to be sceptical.
  • Polruan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:



    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.

    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    Nothing changes during transition, and Corbyn will extend the transition to forever. A hard Brexit Tory might actually leave but th deal bats any decision into 2022. Meanwhile it does actually take us out the EU thus honouring the result. I honestly can't see the problem. The best part is we lose a whole bunch of UKIP MEPs embarrasing us in the EU parliament from day one !
    Two major problems I think. First, ongoing uncertainty. It’s possibke that the transition will extend until forever (at least the 2099 anticipated in the WA) but probably only with short extensions. For example the June 2020 review date probably results in extension to 31 Dec 2021 because a Tory government won’t contemplate extending beyond the next scheduled GE. As long as that happens, there’s a poisonous effect on investment decisions. Maybe no visible mass flight of international businesses, but a year on year decline.

    Second, Britain is effectively held in an arrangement by a foreign power against its will - or at least that’s how the UKIP heirs can portray it in increasingly nasty nationalist campaigns blaming the foreign ‘other’ for all ills. Based on past behaviour in relation to the EU, once the Tories are in opposition you can expect this to be the central core of their offering. It’s unlikely to make the country a nicer, more harmonious place, to put it mildly.
    20XX is no longer art of the draft - it will be replaced by 2022
  • Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
  • Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2018

    philiph said:
    That's Lord Lilley to you
    I think he lives in retirement in Dieppe, France these days. As whenever he is interviewed it seems to be that location on TV news.

    I think people like him operate double standards and I am reminded of an incident where a Brexit supporting British individual who lived in Spain complained about immigrants to the UK!

    Another position I find baffling is people who are against Immigration but are married to an Immigrant like Nigel Farage!
  • Brady better get a move on to get on for the 6 o'clock news.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,362
    philiph said:

    philiph said:
    That's Lord Lilley to you
    Or Peter. Not sure I have ever addressed a Lord as Lord, although I do address a Lady as Lady xyz
    Only lickspittle dumbwits would be stupid enough to crawl to these puffed up nonenties. If he was lucky it would be Peter but more likely a**hole like the rest of the 800 unelected troughers.
  • TOPPING said:

    I wouldn't have thought the alternatives will be known before the vote. Or did you mean JRM's alternative?

    Lab can't be in a position whereby they say "there is no alternative we must vote for the government's deal" when a non-trivial proportion of the government's own MPs believe there is an alternative and will be voting against it. It would be political suicide.

    Well, that's the thing. The vote on the deal will presumably be held after votes on amendments, so maybe the alternatives will be clearer in the sense that those amendments might effectively rule out some options, or at least demonstrate whether there is much parliamentary support for them. In addition there might be some clarification on whether we can revoke Article 50, and there might well be some developments from the EU on alternatives. We'll also probably have more detail on the political outline agreement on the long-term relationship. This is not a static situation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
    Arf
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,746

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    It seems to be the same old misunderstanding that technical approaches to the sea border can be applied at the land border instead.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,414

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
    Is that serious or sarcasm?
    It is becoming impossible to tell.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    Brady better get a move on to get on for the 6 o'clock news.

    He's in no hurry as the gatekeeper.
  • dixiedean said:

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
    Is that serious or sarcasm?
    It is becoming impossible to tell.
    That's genuinely a tweet from ITV's correspondent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    dixiedean said:

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
    Is that serious or sarcasm?
    It is becoming impossible to tell.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064541095504371712 Beyond satire if so.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,746

    Another position I find baffling is people who are against Immigration but are married to an Immigrant like Nigel Farage!

    I think they see it as emasculating. They think British residency should be a perk they're able to offer to potential suitors, not something available as of right.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220

    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    If you put the electoral fortunes of the Labour party above that of the general economy, sure.

    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules out justifiably supporting anything that the Cons have done, negotiated, or agreed upon. They believe that everything would be better under a Labour government.

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.
    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    I guess as a Remainer you are happy to give up UK sovereignty which is exactly what this deal does.

    Labour would be mad to not oppose that.
    Surely we have no sovereignty right now in the dastardly EU.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    #PissAndWindERG
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Polruan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    TOPPING said:



    Jeez I sound like a Labour Party spokesman but it really is very simple: Labour believe that they would have done and would now do a much, much better job than the Conservatives. This rules

    The opposition proceeds from the premise of I wouldn't have started from here and it is in this case entirely justified. Indeed their only task is to displace the Cons and become the government themselves. Saying voting against the government would be against the national interest you might as well say if Jezza became PM the Cons should vote with him every time otherwise chaos would ensue.

    The opposition opposes.

    No, that's wrong. If for example a Labour government under Corbyn proposed a necessary emergency bill to deal with some national problem such as an outbreak of Foot and Mouth, a Conservative opposition would support it. Oppositions often support government bills.
    I think that's a very fair point. I hope Labour don't oppose this purely for the sake of opposing it. The main thing for me and most of the public is stability for our businesses. This would offer that. I'm a remainer, but I'd take the deal.
    Nothing changes during transition, and Corbyn will extend the transition to forever. A hard Brexit Tory might actually leave but th deal bats any decision into 2022. Meanwhile it does actually take us out the EU thus honouring the result. I honestly can't see the problem. The best part is we lose a whole bunch of UKIP MEPs embarrasing us in the EU parliament from day one !
    Two major problems I think. First, ongoing uncertainty. It’s possibke that the transition will extend until forever (at least the 2099 anticipated in the WA) but probably only with short extensions. For example the June 2020 review date probably results in extension to 31 Dec 2021 because a Tory government won’t contemplate extending beyond the next scheduled GE. As long as that happens, there’s a poisonous effect on investment decisions. Maybe no visible mass flight of international businesses, but a year on year decline.

    Second, Britain is effectively held in an arrangement by a foreign power against its will - or at least that’s how the UKIP heirs can portray it in increasingly nasty nationalist campaigns blaming the foreign ‘other’ for all ills. Based on past behaviour in relation to the EU, once the Tories are in opposition you can expect this to be the central core of their offering. It’s unlikely to make the country a nicer, more harmonious place, to put it mildly.
    20XX is no longer art of the draft - it will be replaced by 2022
    Well that is two years later than XX
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
    Is that serious or sarcasm?
    It is becoming impossible to tell.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064541095504371712 Beyond satire if so.
    Well, it is true that the backstop become redundant if we've got a suitable trade deal in place (which is why the EU should have agreed to do the negotiations the other way round).
  • Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.

    Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote?
    Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.

    As I say, I think the likeliest scenario is that there will be no general election, no referendum and no change of PM. In that case, all that will be left is May's Deal or No Deal. If it comes to that, the Labour manifesto gives Labour MPs the cover to vote for the least worst of those two options.

    I'd go further and say that the really smart thing politically for Labour to do if that is where things up would be to back it very clearly and very reluctantly on the basis that the country has to come first and the No Deal the Tory right advocates is unthinkable.

    I doubt that will happen, though.

    OK, I see that people have taken positions and painted themselves into corners. I also get that some individual MPs are doing what they hope will advance their careers.
    However, there must be a majority across the parties that can see that No Deal would be a disaster and that May's Deal is actually a lot worse than Remaining.
    I can see that the problem there is that the 52% might feel aggrieved (although the 48% might be relieved) but we now know a lot more than we did in 2016 and the simple answer is to ask the electorate which way they want to go now. We don't have to harm the country.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    "NEW I understand the Brexiteers now in No10 are hoping to persuade the PM the Irish backstop can be avoided with a separate trade treaty."
    Is that serious or sarcasm?
    It is becoming impossible to tell.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064541095504371712 Beyond satire if so.
    Well, it is true that the backstop become redundant if we've got a suitable trade deal in place (which is why the EU should have agreed to do the negotiations the other way round).
    Six days to conclude a trade deal is well within the EU's usual timescale for these things.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    It seems like May may be regaining some authority. Who knows, Hunt, Hammond and Javid might come out onto the airwaves defending the deal next !
    Perhaps even................ Gove ;)
  • Brexiteers clutching at straws misunderstood emails from Sabine Weyand.
    https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1064545018155868160

    If there is anything in them it is right TM attention is brought to it. I see no problem with that and am not cynical on their motives
    It seems to be the same old misunderstanding that technical approaches to the sea border can be applied at the land border instead.
    TM is nothing but a grown up and seeing them is the right thing to do. She may be able to educate themto be fair but it is a huge task
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Pulpstar said:
    The odious Rees and the risible Baker are seeing their chlorinated chickens coming home to roost.
  • Mark Francois' little effort should get some of the 'credit' if this is indeed the flop it's currently looking to be....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    Pulpstar said:

    It seems like May may be regaining some authority. Who knows, Hunt, Hammond and Javid might come out onto the airwaves defending the deal next !
    Perhaps even................ Gove ;)

    However much you might disagree with the ERG, at least JRM are pinning their colours to the mast. Those in the cabinet who are keeping their heads down are pathetic.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900


    If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.

    I'm beginning to think so.

    Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    Sounds like the ERG did not have a good weekend talking to their associations.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    edited November 2018
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It seems like May may be regaining some authority. Who knows, Hunt, Hammond and Javid might come out onto the airwaves defending the deal next !
    Perhaps even................ Gove ;)

    However much you might disagree with the ERG, at least JRM are pinning their colours to the mast. Those in the cabinet who are keeping their heads down are pathetic.
    Fair enough, I think Micky Fab's plan is the best one for the ERG though and those sending in letters right now have been tactically naive.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Pulpstar said:

    It seems like May may be regaining some authority. Who knows, Hunt, Hammond and Javid might come out onto the airwaves defending the deal next !
    Perhaps even................ Gove ;)

    Presumably the moment Gove publicly declares his full support is the moment you know it’s all over for May?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Andrew said:


    If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.

    I'm beginning to think so.

    Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?
    Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,220
    I wonder if in terms of political triangulation Raab might have best placed himself to take the crown.
    Resigned from the cabinet, but not sending in a letter and is behind May for the moment. Bojo and Davis look even more openly disloyal right now whereas those remaining in the cabinet probably have their chances dented if the good ship May sinks in the near future.
  • I had heard that 500 association chairman were backing TM deal

    In addition the DUP have gone quiet following a barage of anger from their core supporters who want this deal

    We may just be at tipping point for TM to get the deal but lets wait and see
  • "The proper way to resolve the issue is to put the deal to the Commons as soon as possible, ideally this week. There’s very little on the agenda in the Commons this Thursday, for example."

    Does DD think he is losing support day by day?
  • Pulpstar said:

    I wonder if in terms of political triangulation Raab might have best placed himself to take the crown.
    Resigned from the cabinet, but not sending in a letter and is behind May for the moment. Bojo and Davis look even more openly disloyal right now whereas those remaining in the cabinet probably have their chances dented if the good ship May sinks in the near future.

    The trouble is that Raab doesn't seem to have distinguished himself in his cabinet role, and in fact seemed distressingly prone to gaffes.
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683
    Pulpstar said:

    I wonder if in terms of political triangulation Raab might have best placed himself to take the crown.
    Resigned from the cabinet, but not sending in a letter and is behind May for the moment. Bojo and Davis look even more openly disloyal right now whereas those remaining in the cabinet probably have their chances dented if the good ship May sinks in the near future.

    And the ones remaining in the Cabinet have the double jeopardy that if they jump ship now the whole thing will sink, and they will get the blame.
This discussion has been closed.