The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
One big question I have is about this is: Assume her problem is that she doesn't have enough votes for her deal, and she tacks on a referendum to add opposition votes. Also assume she does this without her party firing her and replacing her with a pack of Werthers Original or whatever. How many Con votes does she lose from the other end because MPs who would have voted for the deal won't vote for Deal+Referendum?
The referendum will come almost certainly from an amendment at the time of the meaningful vote. It will be voted on and if it falls it is between deal or no deal. If it passes and then the meaningful vote passes with the amendment then second referendum it is. TM has no direct role in posting the amendment
I don't think there's any sign that Labour would vote in large numbers for such a thing, is there? And most Tories won't unless whipped. In which case I don't see how the amendment has the numbers.
The way I can see it happening is TMay being a bit more involved, eg:
a) Parliament votes on the deal and it fails, she tries again with Deal+Referendum b) Parliament looks like it will pass, she says to the ERG/DUP, "there are two ways I can pass this thing, with you or with a referendum" and decide to try their luck.
But aside from the mechanics of how you get to the vote, which has more votes in Parliament, Deal or Deal+Referendum?
As explained - in your a) example the referendum comes before the deal in the meanimgful vote. It either falls or passes
How do you get a majority to pass the amendment if TMay is opposed? Even if Corbyn supports it, which I don't think he would, and nearly all the Labour MPs followed him, which they definitely wouldn't, it doesn't feel like there are enough pro-referendum Cons, does it?
You seem to confuse the process. Amendments will be put forward across the house and the speaker will decide which to accept. They will be taken in sequence and you can bet one of them will be for a referendum. TM does not need to do anything other than vote on it. I do not believe it would pass but who knows
You're correctly describing *part* of the process but that's not the whole game, because if parliament fails to pass the deal, the next day Britain still has a parliament that can pass laws.
Thatcher taught them that the Single Market gave their business friends access to 350 million of the richest people on earth in a single, easy to trade system, and they somehow forgot it all during one of their weird seminars during which they tried to work out who would wear the oddest clothes and blazers.
You're correctly describing *part* of the process but that's not the whole game, because if parliament fails to pass the deal, Britain still has a parliament that can pass laws.
But passing laws won't stop us crashing out without a deal in a few weeks' time.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
You're correctly describing *part* of the process but that's not the whole game, because if parliament fails to pass the deal, Britain still has a parliament that can pass laws.
But passing laws won't stop us crashing out without a deal in a few weeks' time.
Well, if they take the vote a few minutes before midnight on exit day then failing to pass will mean crashing out (or possibly a late-minute extension, if the other member states are amenable).
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
Allowed by whom? I agree that no sane person would want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact the mechanisms for trying to make it not happen, if the current deal is not agreed, look extremely problematic.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
Allowed by whom? I agree that no sane person would want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact the mechanisms for trying to make it not happen, if the current deal is not agreed, look extremely problematic.
It’s extremely easy. The PM requests an extension and the EU accepts because it’s better than the alternative.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
Allowed by whom? I agree that no sane person would want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact the mechanisms for trying to make it not happen, if the current deal is not agreed, look extremely problematic.
It was announced on ITV news last night by the CEO of Easyjet that there is a "barebones" deal in the background.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
Allowed by whom? I agree that no sane person would want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact the mechanisms for trying to make it not happen, if the current deal is not agreed, look extremely problematic.
It’s extremely easy. The PM requests an extension and the EU accepts because it’s better than the alternative.
In the scenario we are talking about, the PM may well not be Theresa May. It could, unfortunately, be someone who doesn't want to or politically can't request an extension. In any case an extension might be blocked by some minor player, and at best it only postpones the reckoning unless the EU backs down, So why not back down now?
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
Allowed by whom? I agree that no sane person would want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact the mechanisms for trying to make it not happen, if the current deal is not agreed, look extremely problematic.
It’s extremely easy. The PM requests an extension and the EU accepts because it’s better than the alternative.
In the scenario we are talking about, the PM may well not be Theresa May. It could, unfortunately, be someone who doesn't want to or politically can't request an extension. In any case an extension might be blocked by some minor player, and at best it only postpones the reckoning unless the EU backs down, So why not back down now?
The PM can’t be PM without the support of the HoC, and any PM would be subject to the same pressures.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
Last month, Korobov was said to have been in 'sudden ill health' after a dressing down from Russian President Vladimir Putin over 'deep incompetence' shown in the Salisbury poisonings and other international operations.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which will never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
You write as if you think the only way the EU has of knowing what’s going on in the UK is bugging your communications and you don’t want to give the game away that ‘no deal’ has almost no chance of being allowed to happen.
Allowed by whom? I agree that no sane person would want it to happen, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. In fact the mechanisms for trying to make it not happen, if the current deal is not agreed, look extremely problematic.
It’s extremely easy. The PM requests an extension and the EU accepts because it’s better than the alternative.
In the scenario we are talking about, the PM may well not be Theresa May. It could, unfortunately, be someone who doesn't want to or politically can't request an extension. In any case an extension might be blocked by some minor player, and at best it only postpones the reckoning unless the EU backs down, So why not back down now?
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
The PM can’t be PM without the support of the HoC, and any PM would be subject to the same pressures.
True, that's the problem. The pressures include Labour, who want as much chaos as possible, the ERG (ditto), sane Tory Brexiteers and Remainers who accept the referendum result and who don't want chaos but are genuinely concerned about the backstop, the SNP who just want to stuff the Tories, the DUP who seem to want three impossible things before breakfast, and the LibDems who seem to think a referendum will rise automatically from the chaos without human intervention (and automatically give the result they want).
Sure, out of all this something might work out, but the risk of disaster must be at least 50%.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
Nostalgia is killing us. The Internet enabled nostalgia. Why invent something new, when you can easily and more cheaply dole out yesterday’s stuff.
Things are generally better now than at any point before.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
You may not agree with him, but blimey McD is streets ahead of Jezza as a communicator.
Newsnight missed a trick here, they should have done a full 20 minutes or more.
He is a wolf in sheeps clothing
Indeed. But he is a clever wolf. Far cleverer than just about anyone else they put up for interview (Burgon, Abbott, Long-Bailey, Smith, Butler etc etc).
NB: Notice how he bigged up, and I mean bigged up, Angela Rayner. She is 'Nye Bevan". Very glad I am green on her as next leader...
Yes, I am Green on her too, but of course Nye never became leader.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election? Who called the 2016 referendum? You can blame the voters for supporting your party, but you did encourage them.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election?
Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Then it won't be implemented. Even if that causes humiliation for the government.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Then it won't be implemented. Even if that causes humiliation for the government.
Who knows? The mechanism for stopping it is opaque in the extreme.
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
I'm furthest from Trump, and closest to the incoming president of Mexico; possibly soon to be the late president of Mexico if he's serious about tackling the drug cartels.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election?
Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.
Last month, Korobov was said to have been in 'sudden ill health' after a dressing down from Russian President Vladimir Putin over 'deep incompetence' shown in the Salisbury poisonings and other international operations.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
People will vote for the time that they, personally, had the most sex.
However, he's also coloured by what he wants to happen. If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign. It is likely, but not certain, that the EU will accede to the request for more time - as they did with Greece in the Eurozone crisis when Tsipras announced a referendum.
So, assuming that Mrs May is replaced by a Brexiteer, then said Brexiteer will have the option of largely accepting the deal, or crashing out with No Deal. If said Brexiteer was Boris Johnson, he would fly to Brussels and ask JCJ for something, anything, that he could trumpet. He would likely be given some tiny bauble, and would come back and declare his renegotiation had been an enormous success - thus following in the footsteps of Wilson, Major, Brown and Cameron.
In all likelihood, this would then result in the deal passing.
However, increasingly, I think this deal will pass, and perhaps at the first vote. The ERG, it turns out, does not have quite the votes it thought it had. Former Bow Group chairman Kwasi Kwarteng is supporting it. And I suspect quite a lot of Labour MPs will end up voting in favour, or at least abstaining. Ultimately, there are a lot of Pro Remain MPs, and they will adjudge that a close Brexit is better than a No Deal Brexit.
With regards to Northern Ireland, the smart thing for Mrs May to do would be to announce a referendum there, given its special treatment in the agreement. I suspect, given the Nationalist community would be almost entirely in favour, and a substantial number of unionists (who see the possibility of being on the end of two bits of pork) would be too. A 70:30 vote in Northern Ireland would give a lot of cover to Mrs May. (Of course a referendum in Northern Ireland would go down incredibly poorly with the DUP, so Mrs May would need balls of steel to go for it.)
Blimey the bad news for the GOP just keeps coming, seems Mia Love in UT4 was actually defeated.
The final house count will end up 235 Dem, 200 GOP.
I think one of the remaining House seats (GA-07) is expected to stay Republican, so 234-201 is most likely.
The more D seats, the easier it will be for Nancy Pelosi to become speaker: she needs a majority in the whole House and a few Dems in conservative districts pledged not to vote for her, but she probably doesn’t need those “Blue Dog” votes now.
Blimey the bad news for the GOP just keeps coming, seems Mia Love in UT4 was actually defeated.
The final house count will end up 235 Dem, 200 GOP.
I think one of the remaining House seats (GA-07) is expected to stay Republican, so 234-201 is most likely.
The more D seats, the easier it will be for Nancy Pelosi to become speaker: she needs a majority in the whole House and a few Dems in conservative districts pledged not to vote for her, but she probably doesn’t need those “Blue Dog” votes now.
The 200 includes GA7 for the GOP, Wasserman (Who is way better than say CNN or the Associated Press) at this sort of stuff reckons CA21 is the only district still in doubt.
@rcs1000 We're into a sort of twilight zone where someone or other's wishful thinking (Which is normally wrong) on Brexit is going to have to be right.
@rcs1000 We're into a sort of twilight zone where someone or other's wishful thinking (Which is normally wrong) on Brexit is going to have to be right.
If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign.
The resigning part seems kind of out of character. Maybe she'd just ask for an article 50 extension, then go on and on.
It seems like a stable equilibrium, doesn't it? - The ERG/DUP won't vote for a deal because FREEDOM - Tory MPs won't ditch her today for fear of someone more bonkers - The EU won't do something decisive if they can instead kick a can - British voters won't vote her out because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn
@rcs1000 We're into a sort of twilight zone where someone or other's wishful thinking (Which is normally wrong) on Brexit is going to have to be right.
Mrs May's deal is no one's wishful thinking!
The best deal is the deal the majority dislikes the least?
1) How the Blair Babes have descended. 2) This is the quality you risk getting from All-Women Shortlists. 3) It's not the first time she's been involved with this sort of thing. 4) Sad to see a product of Spondon descend to this level. They usually go much lower.
However, he's also coloured by what he wants to happen. If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign. It is likely, but not certain, that the EU will accede to the request for more time - as they did with Greece in the Eurozone crisis when Tsipras announced a referendum.
So, assuming that Mrs May is replaced by a Brexiteer, then said Brexiteer will have the option of largely accepting the deal, or crashing out with No Deal. If said Brexiteer was Boris Johnson, he would fly to Brussels and ask JCJ for something, anything, that he could trumpet. He would likely be given some tiny bauble, and would come back and declare his renegotiation had been an enormous success - thus following in the footsteps of Wilson, Major, Brown and Cameron.
In all likelihood, this would then result in the deal passing.
However, increasingly, I think this deal will pass, and perhaps at the first vote. The ERG, it turns out, does not have quite the votes it thought it had. Former Bow Group chairman Kwasi Kwarteng is supporting it. And I suspect quite a lot of Labour MPs will end up voting in favour, or at least abstaining. Ultimately, there are a lot of Pro Remain MPs, and they will adjudge that a close Brexit is better than a No Deal Brexit.
With regards to Northern Ireland, the smart thing for Mrs May to do would be to announce a referendum there, given its special treatment in the agreement. I suspect, given the Nationalist community would be almost entirely in favour, and a substantial number of unionists (who see the possibility of being on the end of two bits of pork) would be too. A 70:30 vote in Northern Ireland would give a lot of cover to Mrs May. (Of course a referendum in Northern Ireland would go down incredibly poorly with the DUP, so Mrs May would need balls of steel to go for it.)
Any referendum on the deal in Northern Ireland is going to be extended by Parliament to a UK-wide referendum. In any case, the sequencing would be all wrong. If the deal is to pass, it must pass fairly quickly. If it doesn’t, there’s no way a referendum could be confined to the six counties.
Others have already counted 81 Conservative MPs who are on the record as saying they won’t vote for this deal. Now they may change their minds but they will have to do so publicly if they do.
I would prefer it not to be the case but the deal looks unlikely to pass even on a one hand one bounce basis: the numbers against on a first vote look too great.
I think the next step will be for Theresa May to resign.
@rcs1000 We're into a sort of twilight zone where someone or other's wishful thinking (Which is normally wrong) on Brexit is going to have to be right.
Mrs May's deal is no one's wishful thinking!
One could say the same about her premiership. It still happened.
Others have already counted 81 Conservative MPs who are on the record as saying they won’t vote for this deal. Now they may change their minds but they will have to do so publicly if they do.
I would prefer it not to be the case but the deal looks unlikely to pass even on a one hand one bounce basis: the numbers against on a first vote look too great.
I think the next step will be for Theresa May to resign.
It does seem quite cruel of the Tory backbenchers to vote down the deal, yet to leave May in post.
What are they wanting her to do then? We are not prepared for No Deal in March, and A50 would only be extended if there was to be a GE or a #peoplesvote. She tried the first already
A50 would only be extended if there was to be a GE or a #peoplesvote
I wonder if that's true. I mean, the EU side had tactical reasons to want the deadline to pressure the UK into taking a deal on their terms, but now the negotiations are done, and the deal is still worse for them than the status quo, while No Deal is still terrible for everyone, albeit terribler for the UK.
Once the deal is decided and it's clear that it's not going to be renegotiated, it's not obvious that there's a downside to the UK hanging around the lobby in basically the same state as membership, but with no influence because they're leaving.
I know unanimity is a high bar, but politicians wouldn't be thanked for causing needless problems for their voters, and an avoidable car-crash brexit would cause a lot of needless problems.
If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign.
The resigning part seems kind of out of character. Maybe she'd just ask for an article 50 extension, then go on and on.
She won't resign if it doesn't pass. Next stop after that is A50 extension and #peoplesvote.
Exactly. That is what "risk of no Brexit" means to TM, although she won't say so until the apposite moment. Just as she didn't explain that "Brexit means Brexit" had "and nothing more" tacked onto the end of it in her mind.
A50 would only be extended if there was to be a GE or a #peoplesvote
I wonder if that's true. I mean, the EU side had tactical reasons to want the deadline to pressure the UK into taking a deal on their terms, but now the negotiations are done, and the deal is still worse for them than the status quo, while No Deal is still terrible for everyone, albeit terribler for the UK.
Once the deal is decided and it's clear that it's not going to be renegotiated, it's not obvious that there's a downside to the UK hanging around the lobby in basically the same state as membership, but with no influence because they're leaving.
I know unanimity is a high bar, but politicians wouldn't be thanked for causing needless problems for their voters, and an avoidable car-crash brexit would cause a lot of needless problems.
If we are heading for the cliff the clamour to do something will be impossible to resist. The only options I can see are A50 extension, a public vote, or a second vote to agree the WA after all.
I did mention a second referendum, a few times, when it was 6.5. Haven't checked today but yesterday it was at 2.5 with no second referendum at 1.5 (Ladbrokes). Trying to decide whether to hedge it now or see if the deal fails in the Commons.
A50 would only be extended if there was to be a GE or a #peoplesvote
I wonder if that's true. I mean, the EU side had tactical reasons to want the deadline to pressure the UK into taking a deal on their terms, but now the negotiations are done, and the deal is still worse for them than the status quo, while No Deal is still terrible for everyone, albeit terribler for the UK.
Once the deal is decided and it's clear that it's not going to be renegotiated, it's not obvious that there's a downside to the UK hanging around the lobby in basically the same state as membership, but with no influence because they're leaving.
I know unanimity is a high bar, but politicians wouldn't be thanked for causing needless problems for their voters, and an avoidable car-crash brexit would cause a lot of needless problems.
If we are heading for the cliff the clamour to do something will be impossible to resist. The only options I can see are A50 extension, a public vote, or a second vote to agree the WA after all.
I come back to the point on A50 extension - why would the EU agree to it? The only difference from where we are now is it allows the UK to get their ducks in a row for No Deal. By saying Non! the EU have us where they want us - having to make a decision, and presuming that No Deal is not feasible because we haven't planned for it.
My reading of the EU side (which I know fairly well) is that they want Brexit done and dusted - their perception is that they've been politely waiting for nealry two years for Britain to decide what it wants, and a few more months of inconclusive British internal argument is not at all appealing. If something was happening which would magically clarify the British position - a second referendum, an election - they'll be up for an extension while that happens. Otherwise, a request to extend A50 while we have another think will be greeted with a private FFS! and a public polite refusal.
No sane person wants literally no deal (trade collapses, planes stop flying etc.), so in that case there would be transitional arrangements to keep things flowing at a minimal level. But they would be at a minimal level pending Britain sorting itself out.
However, he's also coloured by what he wants to happen. If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign. It is likely, but not certain, that the EU will accede to the request for more time - as they did with Greece in the Eurozone crisis when Tsipras announced a referendum.
So, assuming that Mrs May is replaced by a Brexiteer, then said Brexiteer will have the option of largely accepting the deal, or crashing out with No Deal. If said Brexiteer was Boris Johnson, he would fly to Brussels and ask JCJ for something, anything, that he could trumpet. He would likely be given some tiny bauble, and would come back and declare his renegotiation had been an enormous success - thus following in the footsteps of Wilson, Major, Brown and Cameron.
In all likelihood, this would then result in the deal passing.
However, increasinglyo for it.)
Any referendum on the deal in Northern Ireland is going to be extended by Parliament to a UK-wide referendum. In any case, the sequencing would be all wrong. If the deal is to pass, it must pass fairly quickly. If it doesn’t, there’s no way a referendum could be confined to the six counties.
the DUP are like a man holding the ace of trumps and 6 2 and 3 s in a game of whist. Their card will beat anything on the table but once played they have nothing else, Its power lies in the threat to others.
If MtsM wanted to take them on forget a referendum, call an election at Stormont and force them to govern. Too many things have moved on since the last impasse between SF and DUP and a lot of people want some decisions taken locally plus a hack at the reform agenda to bring NI legislation in line with elsewhere. In trhe current circumstance I reckon the DUP will lose seats.
A leading Scottish academic has called for Britain’s exit from the European Union to be halted in an uncompromising attack on the “xenophobia and economic illiteracy” of the hard Brexiteers.
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, principal of the University of Glasgow, accused leading Brexiteers including Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg of mounting a deceitful campaign. He said they had portrayed academics as an undemocratic liberal elite, as corporations and the wealthy move their businesses abroad and hoard their wealth in preparation for “economic catastrophe”.
Just tiny shifts on the market, odds on no second referendum from 2.5 to 2.37, on one happening from 1.5 to 1.53.
Interestingly(ish), Remain in said theoretical vote has gone from 5 to 4.5 whereas Leave [again] has stayed at 5. I do think if we have another vote the Remain price will tumble the faster.
A leading Scottish academic has called for Britain’s exit from the European Union to be halted in an uncompromising attack on the “xenophobia and economic illiteracy” of the hard Brexiteers.
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, principal of the University of Glasgow, accused leading Brexiteers including Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg of mounting a deceitful campaign. He said they had portrayed academics as an undemocratic liberal elite, as corporations and the wealthy move their businesses abroad and hoard their wealth in preparation for “economic catastrophe”.
My reading of the EU side (which I know fairly well) is that they want Brexit done and dusted - their perception is that they've been politely waiting for nealry two years for Britain to decide what it wants, and a few more months of inconclusive British internal argument is not at all appealing. If something was happening which would magically clarify the British position - a second referendum, an election - they'll be up for an extension while that happens. Otherwise, a request to extend A50 while we have another think will be greeted with a private FFS! and a public polite refusal.
No sane person wants literally no deal (trade collapses, planes stop flying etc.), so in that case there would be transitional arrangements to keep things flowing at a minimal level. But they would be at a minimal level pending Britain sorting itself out.
And it only takes 1 state out of 27 to give a public polite refusal.
Others have already counted 81 Conservative MPs who are on the record as saying they won’t vote for this deal. Now they may change their minds but they will have to do so publicly if they do.
I would prefer it not to be the case but the deal looks unlikely to pass even on a one hand one bounce basis: the numbers against on a first vote look too great.
I think the next step will be for Theresa May to resign.
May is quite clear she will not resign, over 200 Tory MPs will back the Deal so she cannot be toppled, toppling her achieves nothing as the EU will not give more concessions, a clear majority of MPs oppose No Deal so if May cannot get her Deal through the only alternatives will be EUref2, for which May hinted her backing yesterday over No Deal and which would likely see Remain win or another general election which either sees May get a mandate for her Deal or Corbyn become PM backing permanent Customs Union and most likely reliant on the SNP who will demand permanent Single Market membership.
Whichever way all routes are worse for Brexiteers than May's Deal given they almost certainly cannot replace May with a No Deal Brexiteer
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
Je suis Macron!
Me too.
Interesting biases in the responses - heavily weighted to left-leaners (not really surprising for a bunch of Graun readers). And not many female responders. Obviously answering this sort of quiz is a male nerdy thing.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
Comments
Don't these people ever learn?
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Thatcher taught them that the Single Market gave their business friends access to 350 million of the richest people on earth in a single, easy to trade system, and they somehow forgot it all during one of their weird seminars during which they tried to work out who would wear the oddest clothes and blazers.
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
Sure, out of all this something might work out, but the risk of disaster must be at least 50%.
Things are generally better now than at any point before.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/nov/21/how-populist-are-you-quiz
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
Denise Coates took home more than a third of the betting firm’s annual profit in record salary"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/21/bet365-denise-coates-paid-herself-an-obscene-265m-in-2017
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5010559/Former-Labour-MP-Helen-Clark-called-police-arresting-her-pigs.html
*As it should be.
It really is that simple.
https://twitter.com/archer101au/status/1065379025143574528
https://twitter.com/archer101au/status/1065379655228678144
The final house count will end up 235 Dem, 200 GOP.
However, he's also coloured by what he wants to happen. If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign. It is likely, but not certain, that the EU will accede to the request for more time - as they did with Greece in the Eurozone crisis when Tsipras announced a referendum.
So, assuming that Mrs May is replaced by a Brexiteer, then said Brexiteer will have the option of largely accepting the deal, or crashing out with No Deal. If said Brexiteer was Boris Johnson, he would fly to Brussels and ask JCJ for something, anything, that he could trumpet. He would likely be given some tiny bauble, and would come back and declare his renegotiation had been an enormous success - thus following in the footsteps of Wilson, Major, Brown and Cameron.
In all likelihood, this would then result in the deal passing.
However, increasingly, I think this deal will pass, and perhaps at the first vote. The ERG, it turns out, does not have quite the votes it thought it had. Former Bow Group chairman Kwasi Kwarteng is supporting it. And I suspect quite a lot of Labour MPs will end up voting in favour, or at least abstaining. Ultimately, there are a lot of Pro Remain MPs, and they will adjudge that a close Brexit is better than a No Deal Brexit.
With regards to Northern Ireland, the smart thing for Mrs May to do would be to announce a referendum there, given its special treatment in the agreement. I suspect, given the Nationalist community would be almost entirely in favour, and a substantial number of unionists (who see the possibility of being on the end of two bits of pork) would be too. A 70:30 vote in Northern Ireland would give a lot of cover to Mrs May. (Of course a referendum in Northern Ireland would go down incredibly poorly with the DUP, so Mrs May would need balls of steel to go for it.)
The more D seats, the easier it will be for Nancy Pelosi to become speaker: she needs a majority in the whole House and a few Dems in conservative districts pledged not to vote for her, but she probably doesn’t need those “Blue Dog” votes now.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/edit#gid=0
It seems like a stable equilibrium, doesn't it?
- The ERG/DUP won't vote for a deal because FREEDOM
- Tory MPs won't ditch her today for fear of someone more bonkers
- The EU won't do something decisive if they can instead kick a can
- British voters won't vote her out because the alternative is Jeremy Corbyn
2) This is the quality you risk getting from All-Women Shortlists.
3) It's not the first time she's been involved with this sort of thing.
4) Sad to see a product of Spondon descend to this level. They usually go much lower.
I would prefer it not to be the case but the deal looks unlikely to pass even on a one hand one bounce basis: the numbers against on a first vote look too great.
I think the next step will be for Theresa May to resign.
It still happened.
What are they wanting her to do then? We are not prepared for No Deal in March, and A50 would only be extended if there was to be a GE or a #peoplesvote. She tried the first already
Once the deal is decided and it's clear that it's not going to be renegotiated, it's not obvious that there's a downside to the UK hanging around the lobby in basically the same state as membership, but with no influence because they're leaving.
I know unanimity is a high bar, but politicians wouldn't be thanked for causing needless problems for their voters, and an avoidable car-crash brexit would cause a lot of needless problems.
I did mention a second referendum, a few times, when it was 6.5. Haven't checked today but yesterday it was at 2.5 with no second referendum at 1.5 (Ladbrokes). Trying to decide whether to hedge it now or see if the deal fails in the Commons.
Mutti and me...
No sane person wants literally no deal (trade collapses, planes stop flying etc.), so in that case there would be transitional arrangements to keep things flowing at a minimal level. But they would be at a minimal level pending Britain sorting itself out.
If MtsM wanted to take them on forget a referendum, call an election at Stormont and force them to govern. Too many things have moved on since the last impasse between SF and DUP and a lot of people want some decisions taken locally plus a hack at the reform agenda to bring NI legislation in line with elsewhere. In trhe current circumstance I reckon the DUP will lose seats.
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, principal of the University of Glasgow, accused leading Brexiteers including Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg of mounting a deceitful campaign. He said they had portrayed academics as an undemocratic liberal elite, as corporations and the wealthy move their businesses abroad and hoard their wealth in preparation for “economic catastrophe”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/call-to-halt-deceit-of-historic-proportions-78wsnqwcb
Interestingly(ish), Remain in said theoretical vote has gone from 5 to 4.5 whereas Leave [again] has stayed at 5. I do think if we have another vote the Remain price will tumble the faster.
France, for instance.
https://www.lastampa.it/2018/11/22/esteri/debito-eccessivo-bruxelles-prepara-la-procedura-contro-litalia-o5M1cEdyyqU8LBMX349k5M/pagina.html
Whichever way all routes are worse for Brexiteers than May's Deal given they almost certainly cannot replace May with a No Deal Brexiteer
I suspect Macron will grant her just a long enough extension to fetch her signing pen and turn up in Brussels.
"Oh, and Theresa - please put your intials against those little changes I have made to the text...."
So the only votes May needs to worry about are the DUP and I think she'll pull something out of the hat for them. Maybe.
Interesting biases in the responses - heavily weighted to left-leaners (not really surprising for a bunch of Graun readers). And not many female responders. Obviously answering this sort of quiz is a male nerdy thing.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.