"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?
How can you put a deal to the HOC that is not concluded. That is just silly
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
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.
The great mistake made by the media is to have regarded the ERG as an homogeneous grouping with a leader commanding a block vote. They are no more united than is the Cabinet.
Only a cynic would be scouring Theresa May's next honours list to count the knighthoods and damehoods dished out to constituency chairs!
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.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
May I call on the Brains Trust within this community (Mr Smithson? Mr Meeks? Mr Nabavi?) to write a thread header (for five year olds, like me ) on how May's deal compares with what David Cameron was offering when he renegotiated. Pros and cons etc, and whether it was a fatal mistake to treat Cameron's offer so shabbily.
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.
I thought that comment about Dover showed real weakness on his part. This has been reflected in much of the ERG's dogma when spokespersons are confronted by the reality of the situation we will encounter should Hard Brexit be implemented.
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
I suppose it might give a 'sensible' government time to prepare properly for a genuine 'no-deal' Brexit post 2022.
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 don't quite understand how he could resign and not send in a letter, and his admission to being hoodwinked doesn't look great, but on the basis that Gove and co look ridiculous and Boris and Davis can be accused, fairly or not, of jumping ship too early, he may be the one I guess.
May I call on the Brains Trust within this community (Mr Smithson? Mr Meeks? Mr Nabavi?) to write a thread header (for five year olds, like me ) on how May's deal compares with what David Cameron was offering when he renegotiated. Pros and cons etc, and whether it was a fatal mistake to treat Cameron's offer so shabbily.
That strikes me as a category error.
Cameron's deal was primarily intended to put our status in the EU but outside the Eurozone on a permanently-sustainable basis. May's deal is simply an exit deal that takes us outside the EU. There is nothing binding about the long-term future relationship at all, other than the Northern Ireland protocol, which introduces the constraint that long-term divergence will not include Northern Ireland.
"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?
How can you put a deal to the HOC that is not concluded. That is just silly
If the deal has been agreed in principle by the negotiating teams why could the Commons not vote on it? It's at least a better idea than not voting on it just because it will lose.
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.
Labour party, no motivation at all. Many Labour moderates however, will have little issue with disobeying the leadership and voting (or abstaining) to support a very soft Brexit.
Sounds like the ERG did not have a good weekend talking to their associations.
What did anyone expect?
The Conservative Party does loyalty - in fact, that's pretty much all it does do. Back in 1990, the associations tried to deter MPs from voting against Thatcher but it was a secret ballot. The VoNC is an open process - you have to put in a letter and I suspect it would be known if an MP had or hadn't.
The actual vote is different and a leadership ballot more so - I can see Fabricant's reasoning but obviously many will be hoping the ERG are so weak they'll just fall into line behind may and the Deal.
Mr. kle4, it might be they want the deal to fail to pass the Commons first rather than having a pre-emptive vote of no confidence.
Which is probably a better idea. I feel like the ERG were both too soon and too late. Too late as it was clear they would need May to go to get a change in direction so should have at least admitted that was necessary awhile ago, but too soon in that if they get their vote and she wins it only complicates things as she cannot be forced out when her deal fails (not easily anyway, since no formal mechanism to force it).
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
Why would the EU want a 'neutered, diminished and impotent nation'? Has our government wanted that for France, Holland or Germany? No, it's fine to look out for your country's interests, but there are also advantages to working together. That's also true, as much as is possible, if we have to leave.
"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?
How can you put a deal to the HOC that is not concluded. That is just silly
If the deal has been agreed in principle by the negotiating teams why could the Commons not vote on it? It's at least a better idea than not voting on it just because it will lose.
The core problems with the deal are known. If they are unacceptable to the House, the negotiators need to know they don't have a deal....and try to go get one. If the other side won't even try - then we have no deal.
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 don't quite understand how he could resign and not send in a letter, and his admission to being hoodwinked doesn't look great, but on the basis that Gove and co look ridiculous and Boris and Davis can be accused, fairly or not, of jumping ship too early, he may be the one I guess.
I'm slightly biased because I wrote a post suggesting to bet her as next PM (yes, don't laugh) but, on "the dog that didn't bark" principle, McVey's actions are interesting. Unlike Raab, she has kept her head down and, despite writing a more hostile resignation letter, hasn't publicly given any indication of whether she would vote against May or not.
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Only a little - the mockery has only been in part about failure to get the letters in, and a large part about how they've gone about it and the continuous calling that they have or nearly have 48 when they do not. That they may (probably will) eventually get there doesn't change that, but as I predicted days ago I bet they try to spin it that way, acting like the only thing people were doing was saying they will never get to 48.
Sounds like the ERG did not have a good weekend talking to their associations.
Colour me surprised. Genuinely so, I would think associations would be inclined to be anti deal, but then I am not part of one.
Me neither, but I suspect there will be a cohort of Tory members thinking May's doing ok in a difficult situation. I would not be surprised if many Tories admire her perseverance and resilience while disliking the ERG disloyalty.
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 don't quite understand how he could resign and not send in a letter, and his admission to being hoodwinked doesn't look great, but on the basis that Gove and co look ridiculous and Boris and Davis can be accused, fairly or not, of jumping ship too early, he may be the one I guess.
I'm slightly biased because I wrote a post suggesting to bet her as next PM (yes, don't laugh) but, on "the dog that didn't bark" principle, McVey's actions are interesting. Unlike Raab, she has kept her head down and, despite writing a more hostile resignation letter, hasn't publicly given any indication of whether she would vote against May or not.
Good point - I keep forgetting she resigned too, but it was significant.
We dont have any actual policies and hey we may have fucked up Brexit but the alternative is Jezza.
Yep it'll be Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn 24/7
I doubt it will wash though. It was barely enough in 2017 afterall...
Once May either has this deal through or it is rejected then it is probably time for her to go. She's done more for this country than we deserve quite frankly, and deserves a good rest.
I’d sell the deal to the ERG by getting her to go in 2019 and getting a proper Leaver, like Gove, to lead the full FTA negotiations.
There is much to be said for ERG holding back and following the Fabricant line - wait until her deal has been voted down in Westminster. Then put the letters in, when she is self-evidently a failed PM.
The replacement-PM candidates can put in their pitch to MPs what they would do next.
If this deal doesn’t pass we won’t be Leaving, mate.
It’s sub-par and May’s cocked up, but we’ve got no choice. Eyes on the prize.
The sensible compromise is that the deal is passed, but May pays for it with her head. A Brexiteer then takes the helm, to turn the 14 pages of FTA flim-flam into a sensible deal. May can not trusted to deliver.
But why would the EU have any interest at all in doing a "sensible deal" after the WA?
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
Why would the EU want a 'neutered, diminished and impotent nation'? Has our government wanted that for France, Holland or Germany? No, it's fine to look out for your country's interests, but there are also advantages to working together. That's also true, as much as is possible, if we have to leave.
Selmayr has said he wants Northern Ireland to be the price we pay for daring to leave?
Sounds like the ERG did not have a good weekend talking to their associations.
Colour me surprised. Genuinely so, I would think associations would be inclined to be anti deal, but then I am not part of one.
I think the drawn out nature of their challenge and lack of a concrete plausible alternative to May's has badly damaged them. Tory members might not like the deal but don't look kindly on drawn out attempts to unseat their own PM.
"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?
How can you put a deal to the HOC that is not concluded. That is just silly
If the deal has been agreed in principle by the negotiating teams why could the Commons not vote on it? It's at least a better idea than not voting on it just because it will lose.
The core problems with the deal are known. If they are unacceptable to the House, the negotiators need to know they don't have a deal....and try to go get one. If the other side won't even try - then we have no deal.
Sounds reasonable to me. Either way the House directs us down a path, intentionally or otherwise.
It is rather reminding me of situations where people are only just waking up to a major decision, and convince themselves they had no way of doing anything up until the end, and desperately try out a bunch of ideas which have already been worked on for a long long time as if they are brand new.
Given that the information may affect the currency and stock markets, is Brady only likely to make a 48 letter announcement (should one be required) after 17:00 or before 08:00?
Given that the information may affect the currency and stock markets, is Brady only likely to make a 48 letter announcement after 17:00 or before 07:00?
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.
Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.
Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.
Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.
If she really wants then she can go looking for Labour votes. A "people's vote" amendment to the bill that squeaks over the line perhaps..
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.
Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.
When she has a chunk of the Cabinet trying - against her will - to rewrite the deal she has said is final, and yet is too weak to fire them for doing so, you have to ask how much power and control does she have anyway?
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 don't quite understand how he could resign and not send in a letter, and his admission to being hoodwinked doesn't look great, but on the basis that Gove and co look ridiculous and Boris and Davis can be accused, fairly or not, of jumping ship too early, he may be the one I guess.
I'm slightly biased because I wrote a post suggesting to bet her as next PM (yes, don't laugh) but, on "the dog that didn't bark" principle, McVey's actions are interesting. Unlike Raab, she has kept her head down and, despite writing a more hostile resignation letter, hasn't publicly given any indication of whether she would vote against May or not.
Good point - I keep forgetting she resigned too, but it was significant.
Makes sense IF she is looking at a run and realises being too vocal may backfire. She might also appeal to those Conservative MPs in more working class populated seats.
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.
Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.
When she has a chunk of the Cabinet trying - against her will - to rewrite the deal she has said is final, and yet is too weak to fire them for doing so, you have to ask how much power and control does she have anyway?
Winning the VoNC gives her the sorts of options potentially she doesn't have right now. Promotions for Anna Soubry, a return to cabinet for Dominic Grieve. A Gov't of national unity in all but name in return for the "People's vote" ^_~. Chuka might be singing her praises from the other side ! I'm not saying any of that is likely but winning a VoNC emphatically strengthens her.
Brady can only count using his fingers and toes; he'll never get to 48!
Be funny if after the collective screaming against the ERG the requisite letters now appear
Then May storms the VoNC. The ERG are completely neutered.
Lets see what the definition of "storms" is. I'm absolutely clear that she would only go if she lost and she won't lose. But she will lose the support of scores of Tory MPs, and that sinks the deal. And when she loses that vote it doesn't matter if she stays in office anyway, she'd have lost all power and control.
If there is a vonc then Theresa May will probably lose. It is not just the ERG who want a new leader, although of course, there is no agreement on who that should be. The vote will not be ERG versus the rest, it will be May against A N Other. Number 10 has not invested so much in killing off the vonc because they are confident of victory.
Brand new state, Brand new state, gonna treat you great! Gonna give you barley, carrots and pertaters, Pasture fer the cattle, Spinach and Termayters! Flowers on the prairie where the June bugs zoom, Plen'y of air and plen'y of room, Plen'y of room to swing a rope! Plen'y of heart and plen'y of hope! ?
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Ultimately what the ECJ thinks is irrelevant if the EU leaders agree to it because they can always just extend A50 pending legal clarification on the best way to make it permanent.
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.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
Not so, they can't leave things in legal limbo because a company or other group might bring a case in the ECJ later (for example to object to a UK competitor getting a government contract in an EU country).
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
Not so, they can't leave things in legal limbo because a company or other group might bring a case in the ECJ later (for example to object to a UK competitor getting a government contract in an EU country).
This is an interesting question. If the EU were a normal organisation of 27 states, I would say say "where there is a will there's a way". But the EU has a life of its own. It's not clear how far 27 states - some of whom will feel more strongly than others - could sway the EU as an institution.
This is the same line Isabel Oakeshott was spinning on the Daily politics.
Might be true, but there does seem to be an air of Brexiteers wishing ever harder for things that just ain't happening
Anyone who trusts the words of a so-called journalist who betrays every principle of her ostensible profession by shopping her sources is even more a fool than she is.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
Not so, they can't leave things in legal limbo because a company or other group might bring a case in the ECJ later (for example to object to a UK competitor getting a government contract in an EU country).
This is an interesting question. If the EU were a normal organisation of 27 states, I would say say "where there is a will there's a way". But the EU has a life of its own. It's not clear how far 27 states - some of whom will feel more strongly than others - could sway the EU as an institution.
They can, but only within the constraints of the legal structures. The Commission has a bit of leeway (it can provide dérogations on some aspects of EU law), but only to a limited extent.
If you want another group of very angry people seemingly powerless to do anything to change their situation, look at all those people delayed by another disastrous day on South Western Railway.
I'd love someone to produce a clear account of why the engineering works overran so badly they weren't able to start a train service until 10am but I don't suppose that will happen.
More votes for rail re-nationalisation even though it's Network Rail's fault apparently.
to clarify: to admit that one has got something completely wrong.
A fairly regular, if not daily, occurrence for this particular non-journalist. The hopeless Kuenssberg is singlehandedly responsible for my deserting BBC News in favour of ITV.
If you want another group of very angry people seemingly powerless to do anything to change their situation, look at all those people delayed by another disastrous day on South Western Railway.
I'd love someone to produce a clear account of why the engineering works overran so badly they weren't able to start a train service until 10am but I don't suppose that will happen.
More votes for rail re-nationalisation even though it's Network Rail's fault apparently.
This is the nationalised bit - network rail are a busted flush
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.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
I thought you voted to leave? Have you changed your mind??
Do we know how many were sent during Dave's glorious reign? If the percentage is comparable then perhaps this is just the normal amount of malcontents for any given leader.
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.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
"As people voted leave to be better off..."
How do you know that? Some Leavers may have hoped or expected to be better off but I never got the impression that was the prime reason for voting Leave for many.
Even if the 48 promised by the Brexiters’ so-called master strategist Steve Baker are finally mustered, as they still may be, the rebels have lost face and momentum. As one Tory put it, “this is how Vote Leave would have looked without Dominic Cummings ”.
Even if the 48 promised by the Brexiters’ so-called master strategist Steve Baker are finally mustered, as they still may be, the rebels have lost face and momentum. As one Tory put it, “this is how Vote Leave would have looked without Dominic Cummings ”.
If you want another group of very angry people seemingly powerless to do anything to change their situation, look at all those people delayed by another disastrous day on South Western Railway.
I'd love someone to produce a clear account of why the engineering works overran so badly they weren't able to start a train service until 10am but I don't suppose that will happen.
More votes for rail re-nationalisation even though it's Network Rail's fault apparently.
This is the nationalised bit - network rail are a busted flush
It's quite perplexing. Network Rail has three main areas of work: maintenance, renewals, and enhancements. Maintenance and renewals are their bread-and-butter, whilst enhancements are, traditionally, more unusual and harder.
Their performance on enhancements has not been good on too many occasions in modern times, but maintenance and renewals were not too bad. But recently they've been failing on some of those projects as well.
I have no idea if this weekend's work was renewals or enhancements (I doubt maintenance would have caused this much disruption, though it's possible).
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.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
"As people voted leave to be better off..."
How do you know that? Some Leavers may have hoped or expected to be better off but I never got the impression that was the prime reason for voting Leave for many.
Trying to ascribe a single prime reason why 17 million or so people voted one way is a futile exercise. There was/is clearly a hard core of leave voters who would do so again irrespective of the economic consequences (and have held that view for a long time); I’m pretty sure some were primarily concerned with immigration. Quite how many fall in which category (then and now) has to.be fairly obscure, polling notwithstanding.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
The real problem is that we are approaching the point were our backs are to the wall and we have no good options left.
Now that Corbyn says Labour will not countenance No Deal, and seems unlikely to vote for the govts position of May's inferior Deal, that only leaves one option.
What will the 17.4m think? Probably that the Parliamentary Leavers were twits who messed the whole opportunity up.... because that is exactly what they are doing.
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.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
I thought you voted to leave? Have you changed your mind??
I did vote to leave. My view that as a non-Schengen non-Euro not interested in the federal Europe project country we would be pushed to the outer reaches of the EU anyway. So why not step off under our own steam and rejoin an enlarged EFTA?
However, as it seems that we have binned off that option and upset EFTA into the process, to stay would be preferable to May's crap deal or leaving with no deal. And I think I raise a valid point - did any of the people who voted to leave vote to be worse off? Yes you get some gobshites who suggest "a dip is a price worth paying" but they don't mean them personally, it would hit other people.
Now that the facts regarding no deal are increasingly clear I expect that I am not the only person who has switched position...
Boris could still lead the Tories at the next general election but we have to avoid No Deal first either through May's Deal or as a last resort EUref2 otherwise the country and the party will be screwed
Comments
They'll have us exactly where they've always wanted is - A neutered, diminished and impotent nation - You seriously think they'll take their foot off our throat when they have us where they want us?
They'll double down and go for the jugular even more.
The great mistake made by the media is to have regarded the ERG as an homogeneous grouping with a leader commanding a block vote. They are no more united than is the Cabinet.
Only a cynic would be scouring Theresa May's next honours list to count the knighthoods and damehoods dished out to constituency chairs!
1. Remain
2. EEA/EFTA
3. This Deal
4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
Cameron's deal was primarily intended to put our status in the EU but outside the Eurozone on a permanently-sustainable basis. May's deal is simply an exit deal that takes us outside the EU. There is nothing binding about the long-term future relationship at all, other than the Northern Ireland protocol, which introduces the constraint that long-term divergence will not include Northern Ireland.
The Conservative Party does loyalty - in fact, that's pretty much all it does do. Back in 1990, the associations tried to deter MPs from voting against Thatcher but it was a secret ballot. The VoNC is an open process - you have to put in a letter and I suspect it would be known if an MP had or hadn't.
The actual vote is different and a leadership ballot more so - I can see Fabricant's reasoning but obviously many will be hoping the ERG are so weak they'll just fall into line behind may and the Deal.
Has our government wanted that for France, Holland or Germany?
No, it's fine to look out for your country's interests, but there are also advantages to working together. That's also true, as much as is possible, if we have to leave.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1064562180203393025
How many do we think that takes us to?
I'm not saying any of that is likely but winning a VoNC emphatically strengthens her.
to clarify: to admit that one has got something completely wrong.
Brand new state, Brand new state, gonna treat you great!
Gonna give you barley, carrots and pertaters,
Pasture fer the cattle, Spinach and Termayters!
Flowers on the prairie where the June bugs zoom,
Plen'y of air and plen'y of room,
Plen'y of room to swing a rope!
Plen'y of heart and plen'y of hope! ?
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
This is the same line Isabel Oakeshott was spinning on the Daily politics.
Might be true, but there does seem to be an air of Brexiteers wishing ever harder for things that just ain't happening
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1064552421832212481
If you want another group of very angry people seemingly powerless to do anything to change their situation, look at all those people delayed by another disastrous day on South Western Railway.
I'd love someone to produce a clear account of why the engineering works overran so badly they weren't able to start a train service until 10am but I don't suppose that will happen.
More votes for rail re-nationalisation even though it's Network Rail's fault apparently.
I think Ms Villiers is just playing games...
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1064567848771756032?s=21
How do you know that? Some Leavers may have hoped or expected to be better off but I never got the impression that was the prime reason for voting Leave for many.
Ouch!
https://www.ft.com/content/15d51a5e-ebdf-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57
It'd allow an easy stop if desired, without allowing countries to take the piss playing Article 50 hokey-cokey.
("We're In! We're Out! We're In! We're Out! We're shaking it all about!")
So they will vote for the deal then...
Their performance on enhancements has not been good on too many occasions in modern times, but maintenance and renewals were not too bad. But recently they've been failing on some of those projects as well.
I have no idea if this weekend's work was renewals or enhancements (I doubt maintenance would have caused this much disruption, though it's possible).
Now that Corbyn says Labour will not countenance No Deal, and seems unlikely to vote for the govts position of May's inferior Deal, that only leaves one option.
What will the 17.4m think? Probably that the Parliamentary Leavers were twits who messed the whole opportunity up.... because that is exactly what they are doing.
There's a reason he never became PM.
However, as it seems that we have binned off that option and upset EFTA into the process, to stay would be preferable to May's crap deal or leaving with no deal. And I think I raise a valid point - did any of the people who voted to leave vote to be worse off? Yes you get some gobshites who suggest "a dip is a price worth paying" but they don't mean them personally, it would hit other people.
Now that the facts regarding no deal are increasingly clear I expect that I am not the only person who has switched position...