The "have you read the entire deal?" argument is so vacuous and lazy it's almost like giving up. I'm still baffled by why people think you have to have read the whole thing to oppose the deal, but nothing more than a vague sense that May tried her darnedest is required to support it.
Well people should at least have read the bits they are commenting on and it is very clear that many on here have not. They have just listed to others saying how good or bad it is. It means they lack all credibility.
Democracy makes everyone's vote equal, saint or sinner, diligent reader or biased thicko. If only the well informed were allowed to comment then threads would be a lot shorter.
The deal is significantly worse than Remain, but better than No Deal.
Obviously I disagree with you on at least half of that statement.
The order of the 3 possibilities is about values and aspirations. It doesn't need forensic analysis.
Personally, I have arranged my affairs to mean that I am fairly immune, so I can sit back and enjoy the Tory party tearing itself apart. I can't see that any of the 3 options end well for them.
I agree on that as well. I am not immune but will still enjoy seeing the Tory party destroyed. It is way past its useful lifespan.
The Tory Party is still doing fine thanks, a 3% lead over Labour with YouGov this week even with UKIP up to 6% and a 10% swing from Labour in the Bush Hill Park by election in Enfield last night
That is a bit selective - other polls in the last week have the parties level pegging or show small Labour leads. Local by elections are often very local indeed - the Enfield result was certainly not reflected in the Westminster and Wirral results.
The polls still show the Tory voteshare still holding up nicely as any hardliners who have moved to UKIP have been replaced by some centrist Remainers who have moved from Labour and the LDs to the Tories.
The Tories also won Westminster even if Labour held Wirral, though Bush Hill Park was a very well run Tory campaign and GOTV operation admittedly it was still an excellent Tory result in London
Apologies. I don't think there's a date set yet but the week of December 10th is being talked about.
What's the LATEST she could get away with scheduling it?
Is it not in her interest to stall the vote as long as possible (whilst leaving just enough time to get the remaining legislation through before exit day) to (a) increase the pressure on the waverers by simply running the clock down to no deal (b) giving everyone else no time to organise any other credible alternatives in the aftermath of a failed vote?
The "have you read the entire deal?" argument is so vacuous and lazy it's almost like giving up. I'm still baffled by why people think you have to have read the whole thing to oppose the deal, but nothing more than a vague sense that May tried her darnedest is required to support it.
Well people should at least have read the bits they are commenting on and it is very clear that many on here have not. They have just listed to others saying how good or bad it is. It means they lack all credibility.
Democracy makes everyone's vote equal, saint or sinner, diligent reader or biased thicko. If only the well informed were allowed to comment then threads would be a lot shorter.
The deal is significantly worse than Remain, but better than No Deal.
Obviously I disagree with you on at least half of that statement.
The order of the 3 possibilities is about values and aspirations. It doesn't need forensic analysis.
Personally, I have arranged my affairs to mean that I am fairly immune, so I can sit back and enjoy the Tory party tearing itself apart. I can't see that any of the 3 options end well for them.
I agree on that as well. I am not immune but will still enjoy seeing the Tory party destroyed. It is way past its useful lifespan.
Established main political parties are very hard to destroy. The fact that the Tories have thousands of councillors, paying members and hanger-on people, mean it is not going to disappear even if Brexit backfires on them.
I can be confident in this assertion as history has shown (1945 onwards) time and again that Labour or Tory bounce back even after splits or defections. Just look at how Labour were written off in the aftermath of 1983! They won the biggest post war majority 14 years later with a majority of 179 seats over all other parties, a bigger majority than the Tories had in seats. The Tories likewise were hollowed out in 1997 and 2001, yet were back in government in 2010.
As long as Labour or the Tories have a critical mass of councillors, members and foot soldiers to take their message to the electorate they will not die! Politics is like a pendulum, it simply moves back and forth with the occasional unexpected move to the centre. This is unlikely to change.
The only way the Tories or Labour would die is if a new rightwing or leftwing party replaced them, even then it would likely end up merging with them as happened eventually with the Canadian Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party to form the current Conservative Party of Canada
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
Apologies. I don't think there's a date set yet but the week of December 10th is being talked about.
What's the LATEST she could get away with scheduling it?
Is it not in her interest to stall the vote as long as possible (whilst leaving just enough time to get the remaining legislation through before exit day) to (a) increase the pressure on the waverers by simply running the clock down to no deal (b) giving everyone else no time to organise any other credible alternatives in the aftermath of a failed vote?
While we're all here, I thought I'd post quickly on recent economic statistics.
Basically, everywhere is slowing down, and the Eurozone fastest of all. (With one exception.)
German flash PMIs this morning were well down, coming in at 53.2 for the composite. That's down from 53.4 in the previous month, and well down on the expected 54. That being said, it's still someway from a recession. The overall Eurozone one weakened more, dropping from 53.1 to 52.4. The brightspot in the Eurozone is France, where a composite of 54 was fractionally above the expected 53.9. Macron may be upsetting the French voters, but the underlying economy is responding well to reform.
In the US, the PMI also came in light of expectations, and retreated markedly from the last month. At 54.4, it's a reasonable number (and marginally ahead of France), but this is indicative of an economy growing at perhaps 2.5% - not the 4% achieved in the second quarter of the year.
But what is PMI? (I know, and I do think that it's interesting as a measure, but I'm way away from wanting to conclude as you do)
Apologies. I don't think there's a date set yet but the week of December 10th is being talked about.
What's the LATEST she could get away with scheduling it?
Is it not in her interest to stall the vote as long as possible (whilst leaving just enough time to get the remaining legislation through before exit day) to (a) increase the pressure on the waverers by simply running the clock down to no deal (b) giving everyone else no time to organise any other credible alternatives in the aftermath of a failed vote?
The 10th or thereabouts is to time with her European counterparts. I think she could push it back just a little but not much more, before Xmas intervenes
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
On the last bit, would that mean that by not voting for the deal they automatically break C&S anyway, or is the meaningful vote itself not specifically legislative in that sense?
They seem to have a referendum every other week in Switzerland.
Perhap it is time for another one here too
I propose one on if the Cheese Rolling event should be allowed* by the authorities.
* In recent years, it is technically banned / roads blocked for miles around, but they can't stop the idiots turning up and running down the hill.
It's tradition, innit?
I have been to cheese rolling three times and competed twice. The feeling at the top of the hill is pretty much unparalleled. The bids are twittering in the trees. A man in a silly costume is holding an eight-pound double gloucester. You are one of two dozen or so maniacs variously clad in rugby boots, motocross padding and scruffy tracksuits. You lean forward and see the hill. At its steepest it is 1:1. Your breath condenses and falls away through the still morning air down the slope. You feel all the concentration and pump of a crux move on a rock face, all the camaraderie of a rugby dressing room and all the moment-before battle focus you get in martial arts. Plus you've had two ciders and its only 10.15am.
Only two ciders? It'd take more than that to get me up there!
Is there more cider available at the top of the hill?
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
What's interesting to me is that they are committed under the agreement to support all legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
What's interesting to me is that they are committed under the agreement to support all legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
It wouldn’t be legislation pertaining to exit though, would it.
They seem to have a referendum every other week in Switzerland.
Perhap it is time for another one here too
I propose one on if the Cheese Rolling event should be allowed* by the authorities.
* In recent years, it is technically banned / roads blocked for miles around, but they can't stop the idiots turning up and running down the hill.
It's tradition, innit?
I have been to cheese rolling three times and competed twice. The feeling at the top of the hill is pretty much unparalleled. The bids are twittering in the trees. A man in a silly costume is holding an eight-pound double gloucester. You are one of two dozen or so maniacs variously clad in rugby boots, motocross padding and scruffy tracksuits. You lean forward and see the hill. At its steepest it is 1:1. Your breath condenses and falls away through the still morning air down the slope. You feel all the concentration and pump of a crux move on a rock face, all the camaraderie of a rugby dressing room and all the moment-before battle focus you get in martial arts. Plus you've had two ciders and its only 10.15am.
Only two ciders? It'd take more than that to get me up there!
Is there more cider available at the top of the hill?
There's no bar but ,if you got to the top and found you were still thirsty, you could almost certainly share a can with the sort of person you wouldn't ordinarily share drinking vessels with.
The "have you read the entire deal?" argument is so vacuous and lazy it's almost like giving up. I'm still baffled by why people think you have to have read the whole thing to oppose the deal, but nothing more than a vague sense that May tried her darnedest is required to support it.
y.
The deal is significantly worse than Remain, but better than No Deal.
Obviously I disagree with you on at least half of that statement.
I agree on that as well. I am not immune but will still enjoy seeing the Tory party destroyed. It is way past its useful lifespan.
I can be confident in this assertion as history has shown (1945 onwards) time and again that Labour or Tory bounce back even after splits or defections. Just look at how Labour were written off in the aftermath of 1983! They won the biggest post war majority 14 years later with a majority of 179 seats over all other parties, a bigger majority than the Tories had in seats. The Tories likewise were hollowed out in 1997 and 2001, yet were back in government in 2010.
As long as Labour or the Tories have a critical mass of councillors, members and foot soldiers to take their message to the electorate they will not die! Politics is like a pendulum, it simply moves back and forth with the occasional unexpected move to the centre. This is unlikely to change.
The only way the Tories or Labour would die is if a new rightwing or leftwing party replaced them, even then it would likely end up merging with them as happened eventually with the Canadian Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party to form the current Conservative Party of Canada
First past the post is the killer of new parties in the UK. Just ask a member of the former SDP how it limited their prospects. The incumbent party or incumbent member has a serious vote advantage to start with before you factor in the use of an efficient party machine. New parties tend to be spread out over the country and do not have sufficient concentration of support or members to even win local elections. Some independents buck the trend locally but to transfer this to the national scene I can think of only one party that gained a constituency from a main party and that was the Kidderminster health party (I cannot remember the exact name). I think the two main parties are too well established with their friends in the media to experience any extinction soon.
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
On the last bit, would that mean that by not voting for the deal they automatically break C&S anyway, or is the meaningful vote itself not specifically legislative in that sense?
It says "the DUP agrees to support the Government in votes in the UK Parlaiment in line with this agreement".
So I think that's all votes not just legislation. But it doesn't matter what I think, the DUP are duplicitous buggers and will break the agreement just as soon as they fancy (as indeed they already have). Maybe Corbyn should ask if May is going to stop there rest of their £1bn and ask for the £470m back. (He won't of course.)
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Theresa May is preparing to unveil curbs on low-skilled migrants just days before a crunch Commons vote on her Brexit deal in a bid to win round Eurosceptic Tory MPs, The Telegraph has learned.
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
What's interesting to me is that they are committed under the agreement to support all legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
It wouldn’t be legislation pertaining to exit though, would it.
It also says "the DUP agrees to support the Government in votes in the UK Parlaiment in line with this agreement".
Why on Earth is the DUP's threat not as originally reported, i.e. if May puts it to a vote? That would make 10x as much sense as if it is passed.
No, I don't think so. They don't actually want to bring down the government. They want to stop the WA, and replace May with a Brexiteer with whom they can continue their comfy little C&S love in for a few more years.
Consider the threat to take away May's majority a kind of... backstop.
Except well over 200 Tory MPs back May's Deal and indeed with Yougov this week the Tories have a clear lead.
The DUP can sod off. To be frank I would rather the pathetic Corbyn as PM without a majority finding Merkel and Barnier force him to sign either the same Deal or even more concessions than giving in to DUP blackmail
May's deal had a snowball's chance in hell even before the DUP dangled the existential threat of Prime Minister Corbyn in front of the Tories.
So the DUP want to give Cornyn a GE when this was the man who supported their sworn enemies? Really?
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
What's interesting to me is that they are committed under the agreement to support all legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
To be honest I do not believe a word they say anymore.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
The "have you read the entire deal?" argument is so vacuous and lazy it's almost like giving up. I'm still baffled by why people think you have to have read the whole thing to oppose the deal, but nothing more than a vague sense that May tried her darnedest is required to support it.
y.
The deal is significantly worse than Remain, but better than No Deal.
Obviously I disagree with you on at least half of that statement.
I agree on that as well. I am not immune but will still enjoy seeing the Tory party destroyed. It is way past its useful lifespan.
I can be confident in this assertion as history has shown (1945 onwards) time and again that Labour or Tory bounce back even after splits or defections. Just look at how Labour were written ofe.
The only way the Tories or Labour would die is if a new rightwing or leftwing party replaced them, even then it would likely end up merging with them as happened eventually with the Canadian Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party to form the current Conservative Party of Canada
First past the post is the killer of new parties in the UK. Just ask a member of the former SDP how it limited their prospects. The incumbent party or incumbent member has a serious vote advantage to start with before you factor in the use of an efficient party machine. New parties tend to be spread out over the country and do not have sufficient concentration of support or members to even win local elections. Some independents buck the trend locally but to transfer this to the national scene I can think of only one party that gained a constituency from a main party and that was the Kidderminster health party (I cannot remember the exact name). I think the two main parties are too well established with their friends in the media to experience any extinction soon.
True but the SDP polled over 40% in some early polls after its foundation and would likely have won a majority even under FPTP had it held that vote.
In France En Marche came first in 2017 by squeezing centrists from both the Socialists and Les Republicains in both the first round and runoff, in 1983 the SDP's problems was enough centrists went back to Thatcher's Tories to keep Foot's Labour out and after the Falklands War. An October 1981 Gallup had the SDP on 40%, the Tories on 29.5% and Labour on 28%, enough for an SDP majority in all likelihood
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
Yes, the backstop is not their preferred Brexit outcome.
But otherwise, the FP would have to be moved a little bit, but not insurmountably.
In addition, I’d argue that the UK has one of the most tribally entrenched party systems in Europe , maybe even the world. You vote Labour because your family always votes Labour. Same with the Tories. There is an argument that this is getting weaker and breaking down somewhat (2017 looked like it could go that way with the WWC swinging to the right, similar to the GOP/Democratic realignment in the states, but it was much patchier than expected at the start of the campaign). Time will tell if that develops further, but it’s still unclear if that will benefit the Tories or another party long term. Probably one of the reasons it WAS so patchy was precisely the tribalism coming into play.
The "have you read the entire deal?" argument is so vacuous and lazy it's almost like giving up. I'm still baffled by why people think you have to have read the whole thing to oppose the deal, but nothing more than a vague sense that May tried her darnedest is required to support it.
y.
Obviously I disagree with you on at least half of that statement.
I agree on that as well. I am not immune but will still enjoy seeing the Tory party destroyed. It is way past its useful lifespan.
.
First past the post is the killer of new parties in the UK. Just ask a member of the former SDP how it limited their prospects. The incumbent party or incumbent member has a serious vote advantage to start with before you factor in the use of an efficient party machine. New parties tend to be spread out over the country and do not have sufficient concentration of support or members to even win local elections. Some independents buck the trend locally but to transfer this to the national scene I can think of only one party that gained a constituency from a main party and that was the Kidderminster health party (I cannot remember the exact name). I think the two main parties are too well established with their friends in the media to experience any extinction soon.
True but the SDP polled over 40% in some early polls and would likely have won a majority even under FPTP had it held that vote.
In France En Marche came first in 2017 by squeezing centrists from both En Marche and Les Republicains, in 1983 the SDP's problems was enough centrists went back to Thatcher's Tories to keep Foot's Labour out and after the Falklands War. An October 1981 Gallup had the SDP on 40%, the Tories on 29.5% and Labour on 28%, enough for an SDP majority in all likelihood
There is a big difference between opinion polls and actual votes in the UK, especially if they are not running simultaneously with elections.
The media like to talk about the SDP winning in 1981 but it is a fantasy. Indeed, the fact so many defecting Labour MPs who stood as SDP were defeated just goes to show it was never a realistic proposition. They were the incumbent, admittedly they may have had an absence of party machine, Cllrs and the like but still they started off with the advantage of name recognition.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
In addition, I’d argue that the UK has one of the most tribally entrenched party systems in Europe , maybe even the world. You vote Labour because your family always votes Labour. Same with the Tories. There is an argument that this is getting weaker and breaking down somewhat (2017 looked like it could go that way with the WWC swinging to the right, similar to the GOP/Democratic realignment in the states, but it was much patchier than expected at the start of the campaign). Time will tell if that develops further, but it’s still unclear if that will benefit the Tories or another party long term. Probably one of the reasons it WAS so patchy was precisely the tribalism coming into play.
I agree that’s it’s entenched but on one direction only, at least in E&W. Pseudo-Conservative strongholds elect non-Conservatives administrations. It doesn’t appear to happen in reverse.
The "have you read the entire deal?" argument is so vacuous and lazy it's almost like giving up. I'm still baffled by why people think you have to have read the whole thing to oppose the deal, but nothing more than a vague sense that May tried her darnedest is required to support it.
y.
Obviously I disagree with you on at least half of that statement.
I agree on that as well. I am not immune but will still enjoy seeing the Tory party destroyed. It is way past its useful lifespan.
.
First past the post is the killoon.
True but the SDP polled over 40% in some early polls and would likely have won a majority even under FPTP had it held that vote.
In France En Marche came first in 2017 by squeezing centrists from both En Marche and Les Republicains, in 1983 the SDP's problems was enough centrists went back to Thatcher's Tories to keep Foot's Labour out and after the Falklands War. An October 1981 Gallup had the SDP on 40%, the Tories on 29.5% and Labour on 28%, enough for an SDP majority in all likelihood
There is a big difference between opinion polls and actual votes in the UK, especially if they are not running simultaneously with elections.
The media like to talk about the SDP winning in 1981 but it is a fantasy. Indeed, the fact so many defecting Labour MPs who stood as SDP were defeated just goes to show it was never a realistic proposition. They were the incumbent, admittedly they may have had an absence of party machine, Cllrs and the like but still they started off with the advantage of name recognition.
That does not change the fact that the SDP would have won a majority on 40% under FPTP back then. FPTP itself is not the problem, sustaining the momentum is and En Marche did manage to do that in France
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
Until he and others convince me that they're going to say sensible things then we're best outside their club. It's fair to point out though that I'd probably leave the UK on that basis, and form an island of one.
You could club together with some like minded people and colonise one of the Andaman Islands.
Why on Earth is the DUP's threat not as originally reported, i.e. if May puts it to a vote? That would make 10x as much sense as if it is passed.
No, I don't think so. They don't actually want to bring down the government. They want to stop the WA, and replace May with a Brexiteer with whom they can continue their comfy little C&S love in for a few more years.
Consider the threat to take away May's majority a kind of... backstop.
Except well over 200 Tory MPs back May's Deal and indeed with Yougov this week the Tories have a clear lead.
The DUP can sod off. To be frank I would rather the pathetic Corbyn as PM without a majority finding Merkel and Barnier force him to sign either the same Deal or even more concessions than giving in to DUP blackmail
May's deal had a snowball's chance in hell even before the DUP dangled the existential threat of Prime Minister Corbyn in front of the Tories.
So the DUP want to give Cornyn a GE when this was the man who supported their sworn enemies? Really?
"DUP-Sinn Fein!" Ken Maginnis railed at his TV interviewer after he lost Fermanagh & South Tyrone in 2001.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
If you mean 'permanent customs union and single market membership with full membership of the four freedoms and the option to rejoin quickly' I would have said 'no, but that it wasn't the intended outcome of the WA as written.'
Whether that is Labour's position or just an agglomeration of statements from divers frontbenchers I don't know.
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
What's interesting to me is that they are committed under the agreement to support all legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
To be honest I do not believe a word they say anymore.
I'm intrigued Big G. This post implies there was a time when you did believe some of what they said, which I find a trifle surprising.
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
AFAIK (might have missed it) some individuals might have said it but it’s not been stated as an ‘official’ position of the 27.
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
Making them vote again until they give the right answer isn't very democratic.
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
Making them vote again until they give the right answer isn't very democratic.
So what, if it avoids No Deal disaster that is all that matters and less than a third of voters back No Deal
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commissioay.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
AFAIK (might have missed it) some individuals might have said it but it’s not been stated as an ‘official’ position of the 27.
It is the position of Merkel and the Commission and they are the only ones who matter in terms of agreeing a Deal, the EU 27 delegated to Barnier to negotiate on their behalf
AFAIK (might have missed it) some individuals might have said it but it’s not been stated as an ‘official’ position of the 27.
At this moment the 27 can't even agree an official position on Gibraltar, although we may have 26 agreeing the Spanish PM is a dick Boris.
True. That said if they do want the deal to pass (rebellious Spaniards aside) I can’t see why they wouldn’t go for it.
If I were Juncker, I would tell the council to issue a public statement saying they can't support this becuase it gives Britain all the economic advantages of membership and none of the political or financial responsibilities, so it is a bad deal for the EU.
That would give it a fighting chance in the Commons.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
I'm coming round to the view that Labour leadeship's desired outcome is No Deal chaos with the Tories getting the blame.
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commissioay.
Of course some will not like or believe the EU saying such a thing, but I don't see what the downside is given at present the deal is simply not going to be passes, and hundreds upon hundreds of MPs on all sides are intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
AFAIK (might have missed it) some individuals might have said it but it’s not been stated as an ‘official’ position of the 27.
It is the position of Merkel and the Commission and they are the only ones who matter in terms of agreeing a Deal, the EU 27 delegated to Barnier to negotiate on their behalf
It's also a meaningless truism. While our PM has agreed a deal with them they're not going to negotiate another.
If Parliament rejects the deal, May gets ousted and a new PM is elected who says "that old deal was unacceptable, we need to fix X, Y and Z to proceed" then Barnier's attitude might change.
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commissioay.
Of course some will not like orare intent upon renegotiation.
The EU has already said that umpteen times there is no alternative deal, MPs already know that, the stock market and the £ crashing, which they will do if May's Deal is rejected, will help her get it through in a second or subsequent vote even if not on the first vote
AFAIK (might have missed it) some individuals might have said it but it’s not been stated as an ‘official’ position of the 27.
It is the position of Merkel and the Commission and they are the only ones who matter in terms of agreeing a Deal, the EU 27 delegated to Barnier to negotiate on their behalf
It's also a meaningless truism. While our PM has agreed a deal with them they're not going to negotiate another.
If Parliament rejects the deal, May gets ousted and a new PM is elected who says "that old deal was unacceptable, we need to fix X, Y and Z to proceed" then Barnier's attitude might change.
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
I'm coming round to the view that Labour leadeship's desired outcome is No Deal chaos with the Tories getting the blame.
Shocked I tell you.
Which from the marxists point of view is the perfect result.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
Labour's desired outcome is a Labour government. Everything else is secondary.
AFAIK (might have missed it) some individuals might have said it but it’s not been stated as an ‘official’ position of the 27.
At this moment the 27 can't even agree an official position on Gibraltar, although we may have 26 agreeing the Spanish PM is a dick Boris.
True. That said if they do want the deal to pass (rebellious Spaniards aside) I can’t see why they wouldn’t go for it.
If I were Juncker, I would tell the council to issue a public statement saying they can't support this becuase it gives Britain all the economic advantages of membership and none of the political or financial responsibilities, so it is a bad deal for the EU.
That would give it a fighting chance in the Commons.
But I am not Juncker. I couldn't drink that much.
LOL
I still love the video of him peering owlishly at his feet after being told he has 2 different types of shoes on.
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Which does rather beg the question what's the bloody point of QMV if that is so?
The EU may well prefer stalling until our Parliament decides whether it supports the deal. They may well have better leverage at that point.
The deal cannot be put to parliament before it is agreed with the EU.
Do we actually know when that will be? Given its inevitable defeat there's no point waiting on this.
It should be this Sunday unless a spanner is thrown in the works.
The interesting thing is why May is travelling to Brussels on Saturday for an additional meeting with Juncker.
Can't think it's a social.
From a purely tactical perspective, why TMay needs from the EU now is a statement from the Commission (and the Council) that it is this deal or no deal. I.e, this is what’s on the table, there’s no scope for further negotiations, if this gets voted down it remains on the table but there’s nothing that can be done to change it now.
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
SNIP
So what, if it avoids No Deal disaster that is all that matters and less than a third of voters back No Deal
Would you agree that Robert S knows his economics and gives a fair and balanced view of different things?
If yes, why the feck do you keep ignoring it on brexit?
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
EDIT: Just to be clear though, the Confidence & supply agreement signed by the DUP commits them to supporting the government on all votes in the UK Parliament relating to:
All motions of confidence The Queen's Speech The Budget* Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
What's interesting to me is that they are committed under the agreement to support all legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
To be honest I do not believe a word they say anymore.
I'm intrigued Big G. This post implies there was a time when you did believe some of what they said, which I find a trifle surprising.
Maybe me being naive but until now they didnt pass my mind
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Under WTO rules there has to be a border without a FTA and goods checks, meanwhile the UK economy collapses
If Parliament rejects the deal, May gets ousted and a new PM is elected who says "that old deal was unacceptable, we need to fix X, Y and Z to proceed" then Barnier's attitude might change.
Then Varadkar might fancy a bit more, perhaps Rasmussen with the fishing during the backstop, we know Spain isn't so happy with Gibraltar, Macron could find some new grievances....
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
Labour's desired outcome is a Labour government. Everything else is secondary.
You should be appointed to the front bench immediately. That is the best statement on the Labour position I have read.
Perhaps we need no deal for people to realise the sky doesn't fall down. As they emerge blinking from the Anderson shelter to find things much like normal it might be the first step toward national recovery.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2. Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. May's deal is rejected, EU agrees some changes*, gets approved on a second go.
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Under WTO rules there has to be a border without a FTA and goods checks, meanwhile the UK economy collapses
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2. Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. May's deal is rejected, EU agrees some changes*, gets approved on a second go.
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
Ok fair enough but what changes would be required to get it through the HoC?
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
Not really. They could just ask for customs union membership and single market access - the EU will say Thank you very much, that'll be 15 billion a year. I mean its inferior to the backstop where in theory it is free/v cheap so far as I can tell (Because its come about to avoid conflicting the GFA)
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
Labour's desired outcome is a Labour government. Everything else is secondary.
You should be appointed to the front bench immediately. That is the best statement on the Labour position I have read.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
The deal is 585 pages of sparse text, it's really not very long by modern international standards. Which bits do you propose taking out ?
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Perhaps we need no deal for people to realise the sky doesn't fall down. As they emerge blinking from the Anderson shelter to find things much like normal it might be the first step toward national recovery.
Tell that to my Mrs, who is totally reliant on medication.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
No, Barnier and the EU will say 'sod off', No Deal screws you more than us given 16% of our exports go to you but 44% of your exports go to us. Let that be a lesson to others trying to leave the EU and dictate terms to the Commission
So we sod off then, at which point they fail to erect the hard border and their sham is shown to have been bullshit all along.
Under WTO rules there has to be a border without a FTA and goods checks, meanwhile the UK economy collapses
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Not to mention the shortages in the shops and potential limited supply of medicines, the scrambling to stockpile supplies etc and the rioting that would soon occur in the inner cities
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
Option 4 is great because the answers provided to your question of why the EU would agree to that boil down to the same hopeful lack of detail so criticised of the leave campaign of 'It'll work out somehow, and it is in the EU's interest to do so', with no recognition it's the same tactic.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
The deal is 585 pages of sparse text, it's really not very long by modern international standards. Which bits do you propose taking out ?
If the WA is voted down then yes May has a choice of taking parts out from the WA or saying to the EU lets put in a bare bones deal that means the basics work.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
Labour's desired outcome is a Labour government. Everything else is secondary.
Which is a terrible position to have. Same for the Tories.
I'm not saying a party cannot believe that of course it is in the national interest for them to be in power, they all do, but on a specific question of a Brexit deal, the various sides could at least pretend to recognise that some things are more important in the immediate sense, that it should not be the primary factor at least.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
The deal is 585 pages of sparse text, it's really not very long by modern international standards. Which bits do you propose taking out ?
If the WA is voted down then yes May has a choice of taking parts out from the WA or saying to the EU lets put in a bare bones deal that means the basics work.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
Labour's desired outcome is a Labour government. Everything else is secondary.
Which is a terrible position to have. Same for the Tories.
I'm not saying a party cannot believe that of course it is in the national interest for them to be in power, they all do, but on a specific question of a Brexit deal, the various sides could at least pretend to recognise that some things are more important in the immediate sense, that it should not be the primary factor at least.
Good night all.
+1 We are being let down by politicians on all sides.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Why would Spain want no UK tourists? Why would Ireland not want to use the land bridge when 80% of it's exports to the EU pass through? Why would EU industry not want access to the capital markets in London? I could go on.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
The deal is 585 pages of sparse text, it's really not very long by modern international standards. Which bits do you propose taking out ?
If the WA is voted down then yes May has a choice of taking parts out from the WA or saying to the EU lets put in a bare bones deal that means the basics work.
She really doesn't.
There is already a barebones deal in the background.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal with our largest market or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2. Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. May's deal is rejected, EU agrees some changes*, gets approved on a second go.
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
Ok fair enough but what changes would be required to get it through the HoC?
Scrapping the backstop or making it acceptable would be sufficient.
The backstop was negotiated terribly. We knew they were bluffing, they knew they were bluffing, but we still fell for it. I said all along that May should have derogated the backstop negotiation and told Barnier that due to the numbers in Parliament she'd sign anything good enough for Arlene but that the DUP had an absolute veto on the backstop. Get Varadkar and Foster in a room together and thrash it out. Barnier and Varadkar knew that May would back down, but Arlene wouldn't. Would have avoided this whole mess.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
It's staggering that people can equate the impact of a vote, which in the immediate term can only affect sentiment, with the impact of actual practical changes kicking in overnight with almost no preparation.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
It's staggering that people can equate the impact of a vote, which in the immediate term can only affect sentiment, with the impact of actual practical changes kicking in overnight with almost no preparation.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
We voted to leave them all and we were assured that would result in an immediate downturn, which didn't happen. Maybe the CBI, City and Governor of the Bank of England are led by fallible humans who can make mistakes.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2. Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. May's deal is rejected, EU agrees some changes*, gets approved on a second go.
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
Ok fair enough but what changes would be required to get it through the HoC?
Scrapping the backstop or making it acceptable would be sufficient.
The backstop was negotiated terribly. We knew they were bluffing, they knew they were bluffing, but we still fell for it. I said all along that May should have derogated the backstop negotiation and told Barnier that due to the numbers in Parliament she'd sign anything good enough for Arlene but that the DUP had an absolute veto on the backstop. Get Varadkar and Foster in a room together and thrash it out. Barnier and Varadkar knew that May would back down, but Arlene wouldn't. Would have avoided this whole mess.
When Mr Shipman writes his next book I am convinced that it will report that May and her team thought the backstop was good because they could use it as leverage for the UK to stay in the single market and a customs union, aka Chequers.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2. Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. May's deal is rejected, EU agrees some changes*, gets approved on a second go.
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
Ok fair enough but what changes would be required to get it through the HoC?
Scrapping the backstop or making it acceptable would be sufficient.
The backstop was negotiated terribly. We knew they were bluffing, they knew they were bluffing, but we still fell for it. I said all along that May should have derogated the backstop negotiation and told Barnier that due to the numbers in Parliament she'd sign anything good enough for Arlene but that the DUP had an absolute veto on the backstop. Get Varadkar and Foster in a room together and thrash it out. Barnier and Varadkar knew that May would back down, but Arlene wouldn't. Would have avoided this whole mess.
When Mr Shipman writes his next book I am convinced that it will report that May and her team thought the backstop was good because they could use it as leverage for the UK to stay in the single market and a customs union, aka Chequers.
Agreed. All the while saying we'd be leaving both.
Has there ever been a more duplicitous Prime Minister than May? I've thought Prime Minister's in the past had terrible judgement but she's serially dishonest in a way that would make Blair blush.
Alternatively Chicken Little the sky doesn't collapse, the economy doesn't collapse and that WTO claim is a total myth.
We crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake
We crash out of leave the EU, the single market and the customs union, without even a FTA, having completely ignored the warnings from the CBI, the City and manufacturing industry and the Governor of the Bank of England about the damage that will do to the UK economy and the jobs and factories and companies that will go abroad. We can argue about it here but it is real lives and jobs and wages at stake.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
We are still in the EU, the single market and customs union, not crashing out of all of them without an agreed trade deal or transition period, a totally different scenario if it came to fruition next March from in 2016
We voted to leave them all and we were assured that would result in an immediate downturn, which didn't happen. Maybe the CBI, City and Governor of the Bank of England are led by fallible humans who can make mistakes.
Not necessarily, a number of Leavers wanted to Leave the EU but stay in the single market via EFTA or the customs union, the vast majority of the country do not want Brexit to take place without at the bare minimum a trade deal agreed with the EU or on the way to being agreed.
Crash out Brexit ends up with only one result, Remain most likely after EUref2, or full single market membership, it would just be a matter of if not when. Through their stupidity and refusal to compromise the economic damage they would have caused with No Deal would mean Brexiteers would have destroyed for ever voters confidence in a sustainable permanent Brexit outside the EU or EEA
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2. Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. May's deal is rejected, EU agrees some changes*, gets approved on a second go.
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
Ok fair enough but what changes would be required to get it through the HoC?
Scrapping the backstop or making it acceptable would be sufficient.
The backstop was negotiated terribly. We knew they were bluffing, they knew they were bluffing, but we still fell for it. I said all along that May should have derogated the backstop negotiation and told Barnier that due to the numbers in Parliament she'd sign anything good enough for Arlene but that the DUP had an absolute veto on the backstop. Get Varadkar and Foster in a room together and thrash it out. Barnier and Varadkar knew that May would back down, but Arlene wouldn't. Would have avoided this whole mess.
When Mr Shipman writes his next book I am convinced that it will report that May and her team thought the backstop was good because they could use it as leverage for the UK to stay in the single market and a customs union, aka Chequers.
That theory hs the benefit of making sense when not much else does.
So, it's 2 years 5 months since the EuRef and we have currently progressed to just four possible outcomes, unless I have missed any:
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on. 2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues. 3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest. 4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
5. The deal is voted down and a "bare bones" brexit deal is agreed.
So that's 2. without the chaos?
er no because your 2 said no deal.
Right ok, so what does a "bare bones" deal look like?
Covers the basics like transport, planes flying, legal contracts, etc. It can then be built on in the coming years to form a more complete agreement. It will stop Barnier and his the clock is tocking stuff. Which will happen again in 2020, with the currently proposed May WA.
Can't see any incentive for the EU to help us out with that tbh.
Their flights use our aerospace etc, etc - they need a deal too. Maybe less than us, but they need a barebones one just as we do. Fudge will be the order of the day if it has to be, there will never be a no deal. It will just be a deal minimus.
Since I have not read it in it's entirety, does anyone know if there is anything in May's deal that would prevent Labour achieving their desired Brexit outcome assuming they take office during the transition period?
When you know what Labours desired outcome is please let us all know.
Labour's desired outcome is a Labour government. Everything else is secondary.
"Special Order 937: Priority one — Ensure return of Labour to government. All other considerations secondary. Crew expendable."
Comments
YouGov has 7% of 2017 Tories now backing UKIP but 7% of 2017 LDs and 3% of 2017 Labour voters backing the Tories for example. While 5% of 2017 Labour voters have switched to the LDs.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rrlh8uvy0x/TheTimes_181119_VI_Trackers_bpc_w.pdf
The Tories also won Westminster even if Labour held Wirral, though Bush Hill Park was a very well run Tory campaign and GOTV operation admittedly it was still an excellent Tory result in London
Is it not in her interest to stall the vote as long as possible (whilst leaving just enough time to get the remaining legislation through before exit day) to (a) increase the pressure on the waverers by simply running the clock down to no deal (b) giving everyone else no time to organise any other credible alternatives in the aftermath of a failed vote?
All motions of confidence
The Queen's Speech
The Budget*
Finance bills, money bills and appropriation legislation
Legislation pertaining to the UK's exit from the European Union
*So the DUP have already broken the agreement.
Thanks Ben - you are right but the real problem will be if they vote the budget tax cuts down
Comparing PMI figures across nations is daft.
There is nothing in the agreement that qualifies what the government's position on Brexit has to be; Theresa could in theory try to cancel Brexit and the DUP would be committed to support her.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comedy/what-to-see/dinner-one-wobbly-british-comedy-film-conquered-europe/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf
It says "the DUP agrees to support the Government in votes in the UK Parlaiment in line with this agreement".
So I think that's all votes not just legislation. But it doesn't matter what I think, the DUP are duplicitous buggers and will break the agreement just as soon as they fancy (as indeed they already have). Maybe Corbyn should ask if May is going to stop there rest of their £1bn and ask for the £470m back. (He won't of course.)
The only way she gets it through (and even then probably only on a second vote) is if she gets a binary “take it or leave it”.
From the EU side, in a way this makes sense. I can’t think there’s oodles if appetite for further uncertainty around what might or might not get negotiated. Of course there’s a level of brinkmanship there but in any situation like this that can be a strong hand to play.
Theresa May is preparing to unveil curbs on low-skilled migrants just days before a crunch Commons vote on her Brexit deal in a bid to win round Eurosceptic Tory MPs, The Telegraph has learned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtoKz1FLVh8
Really?
In France En Marche came first in 2017 by squeezing centrists from both the Socialists and Les Republicains in both the first round and runoff, in 1983 the SDP's problems was enough centrists went back to Thatcher's Tories to keep Foot's Labour out and after the Falklands War. An October 1981 Gallup had the SDP on 40%, the Tories on 29.5% and Labour on 28%, enough for an SDP majority in all likelihood
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1979-1983
Yes, the backstop is not their preferred Brexit outcome.
But otherwise, the FP would have to be moved a little bit, but not insurmountably.
In addition, I’d argue that the UK has one of the most tribally entrenched party systems in Europe , maybe even the world. You vote Labour because your family always votes Labour. Same with the Tories. There is an argument that this is getting weaker and breaking down somewhat (2017 looked like it could go that way with the WWC swinging to the right, similar to the GOP/Democratic realignment in the states, but it was much patchier than expected at the start of the campaign). Time will tell if that develops further, but it’s still unclear if that will benefit the Tories or another party long term. Probably one of the reasons it WAS so patchy was precisely the tribalism coming into play.
The media like to talk about the SDP winning in 1981 but it is a fantasy. Indeed, the fact so many defecting Labour MPs who stood as SDP were defeated just goes to show it was never a realistic proposition. They were the incumbent, admittedly they may have had an absence of party machine, Cllrs and the like but still they started off with the advantage of name recognition.
Whether that is Labour's position or just an agglomeration of statements from divers frontbenchers I don't know.
dickBoris.'NASUWT launches sexual harassment campaign.'
That would give it a fighting chance in the Commons.
But I am not Juncker. I couldn't drink that much.
If Parliament rejects the deal, May gets ousted and a new PM is elected who says "that old deal was unacceptable, we need to fix X, Y and Z to proceed" then Barnier's attitude might change.
Which from the marxists point of view is the perfect result.
I still love the video of him peering owlishly at his feet after being told he has 2 different types of shoes on.
Trevor Philips & the Iceland chap = Very sensible
Hartley Brewer & Lewis = Delusional.
1. May's unloved deal is approved, talks about the future relationship stumble on.
2. We crash out with no deal, chaos ensues.
3. We revoke A50 and Remain, cue eternal Brexiteer unrest.
4. May's deal is rejected but we ask for an extension of A50 and further negotiations (though why the EU would agree that is beyond me).
A 2nd Ref would surely be required for 3. but might equally lead to 1. or 2.
Option 4. could have a Labour or an ERG flavour.
Any other options?
Avail yourselves of the 40/1 on BF while you can (see last thread header).
* They say they won't but see for instance after both Irish rejections of Nice and Lisbon and the Danish Maastricht referendum. Each time there was a tweak that addressed a specific issue which allowed a facesaving and the deal to go through on a second go.
Night all...
Missed much? Anyone turning up Sunday with a signing pen?
Not to mention the shortages in the shops and potential limited supply of medicines, the scrambling to stockpile supplies etc and the rioting that would soon occur in the inner cities
I'm not saying a party cannot believe that of course it is in the national interest for them to be in power, they all do, but on a specific question of a Brexit deal, the various sides could at least pretend to recognise that some things are more important in the immediate sense, that it should not be the primary factor at least.
Good night all.
Your arguments now are no different to those of the Chicken Little's who said the sky would fall if we voted Leave in the first place.
Why would Ireland not want to use the land bridge when 80% of it's exports to the EU pass through?
Why would EU industry not want access to the capital markets in London?
I could go on.
The backstop was negotiated terribly. We knew they were bluffing, they knew they were bluffing, but we still fell for it. I said all along that May should have derogated the backstop negotiation and told Barnier that due to the numbers in Parliament she'd sign anything good enough for Arlene but that the DUP had an absolute veto on the backstop. Get Varadkar and Foster in a room together and thrash it out. Barnier and Varadkar knew that May would back down, but Arlene wouldn't. Would have avoided this whole mess.
Has there ever been a more duplicitous Prime Minister than May? I've thought Prime Minister's in the past had terrible judgement but she's serially dishonest in a way that would make Blair blush.
Crash out Brexit ends up with only one result, Remain most likely after EUref2, or full single market membership, it would just be a matter of if not when. Through their stupidity and refusal to compromise the economic damage they would have caused with No Deal would mean Brexiteers would have destroyed for ever voters confidence in a sustainable permanent Brexit outside the EU or EEA
Or maybe even Corbyn xD