If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
No he could not. Barnier and Juncker have made abundantly clear it is this Deal or No Deal and the backstop is non negotiable
Well lets test out that theory....
At which point Juncker stands up at an EU press conference rips the Deal in half after Parliament rejects it and says we now go to No Deal, no more negotiation
As long as they promise to have a video camera in the room when Juncker orders Leo Varadkar to get his transit van full of 2x4 down to the border and start building that fence.
To the EU if Northern Ireland is outside the customs union and single market that is a hard border
If that's the extent of a hard border why does the Uk give a toss ?
As we need a Deal more than them
I think Mrs May has made that very very clear to them and its reflected in the dogs breakfast they have offered up.
It is economic reality, 44% of UK exports go to the EU, only 16% of EU exports go to the UK.
The EU have no incentive to make big concessions to the UK and risk other nations thinking of leaving the EU
Best to start with the obvious. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith, propped up by Nigel Farage, are not viable as a new British government. They just aren’t. Trust me: this will be a shambles.
A huge bust-up lies ahead. Our experiment in direct democracy is hurtling towards our tradition of representative democracy like some giant asteroid towards a moon. Within a year an irresistible force will collide with an object called parliament: an object that, if not immovable, will be harder to move than anyone imagines.
The Times has estimated that about 160 of the 650 MPs elected last year want Britain to leave the EU. The overwhelming majority of Westminster MPs believes that leaving would be a mistake. Many believe it would be a very grave mistake. Not a few believe it would be calamitous. But parliament did vote to hold the referendum — and, by implication, to respect its result. This is clear. What can never be known is how many of those parliamentarians thought the plebiscite would result in an instruction to leave the EU. I certainly didn’t.
Well I was wrong. We know now. And in due course, as Britain’s exit proceeds, there will be crucial Commons votes. What are Remain Tory MPs to do? Break faith with the referendum they voted for, in many cases too lightly? How dare they. Or break faith with what their own judgments and conscience tell them are the interests of constituents and country alike? How could they.
Meeting between opposition MPs and Barwell gets duff reviews. Snell says "insipid" will vote against. Creasy "death by PowerPoint ". Questions not answered.
Does "death by powerpoint" simply mean politicians had to immerse themselves in the actual detail for five minutes without checking Twitter?
No. According to reports it means a Civil Servant read out what was on the screen for half an hour. What was on the screen had been on the govt website all week.
If Theresa May actions do not make sense looking at the forthcoming vote in Parliament, perhaps her actions are focused on preparing the ground for what she is going to do next?
I think it's probably sheer, demented stubbornness. However, if you look at it as if she's a normal scheming politician, you'd guess that she plans to do something that may delay or stop Brexit, and she wants to make the point that she tried really, really hard to make Brexit happen.
The thing to remember IMO is that many on the populist right secretly hope Brexit doesn't happen because that would probably guarantee them 20% in the polls instead of 5%.
Best to start with the obvious. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith, propped up by Nigel Farage, are not viable as a new British government. They just aren’t. Trust me: this will be a shambles.
A huge bust-up lies ahead. Our experiment in direct democracy is hurtling towards our tradition of representative democracy like some giant asteroid towards a moon. Within a year an irresistible force will collide with an object called parliament: an object that, if not immovable, will be harder to move than anyone imagines.
The Times has estimated that about 160 of the 650 MPs elected last year want Britain to leave the EU. The overwhelming majority of Westminster MPs believes that leaving would be a mistake. Many believe it would be a very grave mistake. Not a few believe it would be calamitous. But parliament did vote to hold the referendum — and, by implication, to respect its result. This is clear. What can never be known is how many of those parliamentarians thought the plebiscite would result in an instruction to leave the EU. I certainly didn’t.
Well I was wrong. We know now. And in due course, as Britain’s exit proceeds, there will be crucial Commons votes. What are Remain Tory MPs to do? Break faith with the referendum they voted for, in many cases too lightly? How dare they. Or break faith with what their own judgments and conscience tell them are the interests of constituents and country alike? How could they.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
I suspect that the next few years will be troubling to put it mildly.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
No he could not. Barnier and Juncker have made abundantly clear it is this Deal or No Deal and the backstop is non negotiable
Well lets test out that theory....
At which point Juncker stands up at an EU press conference rips the Deal in half after Parliament rejects it and says we now go to No Deal, no more negotiation, it is up to Britain to learn the consequences of leaving the EU and the single market and customs union and wanting a complete break from the EU and it will serve as a lesson to others.
The EU can survive No Deal as only 16% of its exports come here, as 44% of UK exports go to the EU it will be much harder for us
Like they ripped apart Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon?
History is against you. History shows that once the EU has an agreement they will give squeaky wheels just enough grease to get it through.
But what wheels, what grease? May has been banging her head against the backstop all year. Boris may have a thicker skull, but I don't see any reason to believe he'd have more success.
The difference is that May was just coming across as a bloody difficult woman refusing to agree to something she would (and did) eventually agree to. There was no need for anyone to give in to May as she wasn't going to stand firm.
Parliament is different. Parliament is going to stand firm. That changes things. As I believe it was Keynes who said "when the facts change, I change my mind". We can't rule out Parliament being more successful than May.
May vs Corbyn debate could be Clegg vs Farage all over again. Polished facts vs rage, narrative and populism. All the while elevating the outsider to the rank of the incumbent. I'm astonished she's offering it to him. Another sign she's cracked and needs removing.
And Clegg was decent at debates, May on the other hand is errhhh shall we say "untested" and given the evidence of inability to wipe the floor with Jezza in PMQs, despite his limited intellect and inability to think on his feet, if I was her advisers I would have been trying to do anything but call him people to debate.
I think May must have her chance to win the MV. I don't see how she can at present, I don't see how it can even be close, but she must get a chance.
If the vote is decisively against, 100+, as looks nailed on at the moment she will need to resign. She has failed to carry Parliament with her in her journey to this deal and she will have failed to convince a meaningful proportion of her own party.
TBH she hasn't really tried. What's happening now is part of an inexplicable failure to build a cross party consensus, or even keep her own backbenchers on board.
Which given the fragility of her majority, is UTTERLY incomprehensible behaviour.
'Theresa May is a hopeless politician part MCMXVIII'.
Any referendum cannot have a No Deal option* and hence I can't see how there could be one.
* because NI blah blah said it a thousand times before.
Yes exactly - and also because no even vaguely sane minister is going to commit the country to the chaos, having heard the industry and civil service briefings.
If the referendum is between Deal and Remain, turnout will be very low. It will store up trouble for the future.
Still better than crashing out, which is unthinkable, and would store up hugely more trouble. For Remainers who supported going ahead with Brexit on the basis that the democratic decision had to be respected, the fact that Leavers are no longer happy with the Brexit they campaigned for removes the obligation to respect the referendum result.
Your last sentence is utter rubbish. How many Leavers campaigned for May’s deal? ...
Nearly all Leavers (with the notable exception of Patrick Minford) campaigned for a form of Brexit like May's deal:
- A 'free trade area from Ireland to Turkey': Tick - A deal which protects supply chains: Tick - An end to free movement: Tick - Out of the CAP: Tick - Out of the CFP: Tick - End to ever-closer union: Tick - No even hypothetical chance of getting involved in an EU Army: Tick - An end to ECJ jurisdiction in UK domestic law: Tick - An end to megapayments to the EU: Tick - Possibility of agreeing our own trade deals: Only half a tick, I concede
I've no idea why they no longer favour these things, but as I said, the fact that they don't means we no longer should feel obliged to respect the result of the first people's vote. If they don't want to take Yes for an answer, why on earth should those who preferred No in the first place disagree with their new position?
It's possible that if we'd put the backstop on the referendum ballot paper things would have been very different.
The other thing is, the way May keeps going on about "ending free movement for good" and expecting applause and actually getting silence is another problem for May:
She simply doesn't understand what motivates remainers and leavers.
May doesn't like immigrants, so obviously giving immigrants a kicking and depriving UK citizens of the reciprocal rights we've had for 40 years obviously makes her very moist.
Unfortunately, it's not what the people about to her humiliate her on a colossal scale care about. And she's not getting the message.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
Meeting between opposition MPs and Barwell gets duff reviews. Snell says "insipid" will vote against. Creasy "death by PowerPoint ". Questions not answered.
Does "death by powerpoint" simply mean politicians had to immerse themselves in the actual detail for five minutes without checking Twitter?
I think it does.
It does make me wonder about Barwell's grasp on the seriousness of his predicament or reality.
His job depends on somehow avoiding a catastrophic shellacking for his boss, which by this point, barring a miracle, seems now absolutely certain.
His solution was a powerpoint presentation.
In the Torygraph this morning Barwell was getting both barrels from an MP for being duplicitous, he seems to be a big part of the problem.
Any referendum cannot have a No Deal option* and hence I can't see how there could be one.
* because NI blah blah said it a thousand times before.
Yes exactly - and also because no even vaguely sane minister is going to commit the country to the chaos, having heard the industry and civil service briefings.
If the referendum is between Deal and Remain, turnout will be very low. It will store up trouble for the future.
Still better than crashing out, which is unthinkable, and would store up hugely more trouble. For Remainers who supported going ahead with Brexit on the basis that the democratic decision had to be respected, the fact that Leavers are no longer happy with the Brexit they campaigned for removes the obligation to respect the referendum result.
Your last sentence is utter rubbish. How many Leavers campaigned for May’s deal? ...
Nearly all Leavers (with the notable exception of Patrick Minford) campaigned for a form of Brexit like May's deal:
- A 'free trade area from Ireland to Turkey': Tick - A deal which protects supply chains: Tick - An end to free movement: Tick - Out of the CAP: Tick - Out of the CFP: Tick - End to ever-closer union: Tick - No even hypothetical chance of getting involved in an EU Army: Tick - An end to ECJ jurisdiction in UK domestic law: Tick - An end to megapayments to the EU: Tick - Possibility of agreeing our own trade deals: Only half a tick, I concede
I've no idea why they no longer favour these things, but as I said, the fact that they don't means we no longer should feel obliged to respect the result of the first people's vote. If they don't want to take Yes for an answer, why on earth should those who preferred No in the first place disagree with their new position that the Brexit campaigned for is worse than Remain?
The ERG and the Tory party - the scorpion and the frog.
May vs Corbyn debate could be Clegg vs Farage all over again. Polished facts vs rage, narrative and populism. All the while elevating the outsider to the rank of the incumbent. I'm astonished she's offering it to him. Another sign she's cracked and needs removing.
And Clegg was decent at debates, May on the other hand is errhhh shall we say untested and given the evidence of inability to wipe the floor with Jezza in PMQs, despite his limited intellect and inability to think on his feet. It is hardly like when Blair had to defend against Hague, who people might not like his politics but was skilled at debating.
I'd vote for the debate to be delegated to Blair and Hague. Weirdly, I think that May is quite a good speaker in many ways, and Corbyn is only good in certain circumstances. But one of those circumstances is up against May.
This two week fakey-election campaign is going about as well for May as the real one went.
The thing is, May has spent two years painting herself into a corner using landmines, and now she has to come out of the corner. And the landmines are going off, one by one, and she's running out of limbs.
It's not even lunchtime, and today she's stepped on Sir Michael Fallon, Donald Trump, Gavin Barwell's pathetic pleading to a half-empty audience of Labour MPs, and trying and failing to pull a bait and switch on the Attorney General's legal advice.
The danger is that ridiculing the deal has now achieved critical mass. Once that happens, everything becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, every event gets construed in terms of how it confirms the narrative.
Even worse, countervailing narratives can no longer get a foothold. MPs who were minded to support or abstain on the deal, now feel they can or must join in the pile-on or be ridiculed/left out of the fun.
Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history, and Parliament seems to be about to award May an absolutely momentous shellacking of unparalleled historical brutality.
For comparison, Neville Chamberlain lost a VONC in the house by 83 votes, which as the time was considered an unparalleled political failure and abject humiliation.
May is on course to nearly double that record. She's going to massively outstrip the mauling of a Prime Minister whose crime was to appease Hitler.
Chamberlain actually WON by 81 votes - though it was technically a Vote on the Adjournment which he had decided to treat as a Confidence Vote.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
May vs Corbyn debate could be Clegg vs Farage all over again. Polished facts vs rage, narrative and populism. All the while elevating the outsider to the rank of the incumbent. I'm astonished she's offering it to him. Another sign she's cracked and needs removing.
It is an odd move. Will take up a lot of her time and won't change the opinion of any of her target audience, MPs. And May is casting herself in the role of the underdog in challenging her opponents to a public debate.
The thing to remember IMO is that many on the populist right secretly hope Brexit doesn't happen because that would probably guarantee them 20% in the polls instead of 5%.
Exactly. We are being told any Eurosceptic voting against May's deal is voting against their own interests. But of course now remaining in the EU or in a much softer Norway + *is* in the interests of some Eurosceptics. Because their careers are based on betrayal narratives not taking the blame for a No Deal crash out. A Brecht sell out will suit a subset of Eurosceptic MPs very well. Ditto the DUP for similar reasons.
Meeting between opposition MPs and Barwell gets duff reviews. Snell says "insipid" will vote against. Creasy "death by PowerPoint ". Questions not answered.
Does "death by powerpoint" simply mean politicians had to immerse themselves in the actual detail for five minutes without checking Twitter?
I think it does.
It does make me wonder about Barwell's grasp on the seriousness of his predicament or reality.
His job depends on somehow avoiding a catastrophic shellacking for his boss, which by this point, barring a miracle, seems now absolutely certain.
His solution was a powerpoint presentation.
Or maybe he knows the writing is on the wall. And put in a bare minimum. Any meetings where you have members of the Opposition turning up to be persuaded starts with "Thank you for coming. How can we make this happen?" You listen, you don't talk. You attempt to find solutions. You bribe, cajole, re-assure, flatter, encourage. You do not drone on in front of a presentation. Is that really not blindingly obvious?
Meeting between opposition MPs and Barwell gets duff reviews. Snell says "insipid" will vote against. Creasy "death by PowerPoint ". Questions not answered.
Does "death by powerpoint" simply mean politicians had to immerse themselves in the actual detail for five minutes without checking Twitter?
I think it does.
It does make me wonder about Barwell's grasp on the seriousness of his predicament or reality.
His job depends on somehow avoiding a catastrophic shellacking for his boss, which by this point, barring a miracle, seems now absolutely certain.
His solution was a powerpoint presentation.
In the Torygraph this morning Barwell was getting both barrels from an MP for being duplicitous, he seems to be a big part of the problem.
He lost his seat, and then May gave him a job anyway. What happened to respecting the will of the electorate Theresa?
And look at his massive forehead and tiny beady eyes. It'd be like being lectured by an embryo.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
I suspect that the next few years will be troubling to put it mildly.
A renegotiation is actually good not just least bad. Of course the EU are claiming they're done but they need to. They thought they could get this deal through because they thought May would sign whatever was put in front of them. On that they were right but I don't think they ever seriously thought Parliament would say no. If it does they face a dilemma like we do.
Sure they could play hardball, continue to insist on the now dead deal or no deal. But they don't want no deal any more than we do. It's a threat not a goal.
Nobody will say now a renegotiation is viable but reality shows it as the path of least resistance.
Good discussion this morning, feels the quality of debate as gone up as the reality of cliff edges approaches!
Couple of thoughts: 1- lots of assumptions that may resigns after getting tonked in the Meaningful Vote. I'm not so sure she's the resigning type, her duty is to find a way through, somehow. 2- the idea that we can go back to Brussels with a wishlist of changes is barking mad, what extra concessions could we offer if we wanted any extra leverage on the backstop? That's a more realistic question if we are serious about improving the deal. 3- I think it has to be 3 options by AV if it does go to another referendum. If there are only 2, supporters of the third will cry foul, the legitimacy will be questioned and there could be a lower turnout. All the attempts to order the questions look like a stitch up, I'm increasingly thinking it has to be first choice, second choice with the 3 options treated equivalently. Same as London Mayor, PCC elections etc. 4- time to sod the electoral commission. We're not hanging around 6 months, parliament agrees the wording, let the political parties do the campaigning so no time registering campaigns etc. 5-@Jonathan is absolutely right to correct the fantasy options: we have three options for April remain, leave with deal leave without deal. That's it. 6- I hope the PM stays above the fray in any referendum campaign. They need to be able to implement any option, and should step back from campaigning. Plenty of minions to take sides we need someone who can unite the country, and they won't be able to do it having got stuck into campaigning.
Any referendum cannot have a No Deal option* and hence I can't see how there could be one.
* because NI blah blah said it a thousand times before.
Yes exactly - and also because no even vaguely sane minister is going to commit the country to the chaos, having heard the industry and civil service briefings.
If the referendum is between Deal and Remain, turnout will be very low. It will store up trouble for the future.
Still better than crashing out, which is unthinkable, and would store up hugely more trouble. For Remainers who supported going ahead with Brexit on the basis that the democratic decision had to be respected, the fact that Leavers are no longer happy with the Brexit they campaigned for removes the obligation to respect the referendum result.
Your last sentence is utter rubbish. How many Leavers campaigned for May’s deal? ...
Nearly all Leavers (with the notable exception of Patrick Minford) campaigned for a form of Brexit like May's deal:
- A 'free trade area from Ireland to Turkey': Tick - A deal which protects supply chains: Tick - An end to free movement: Tick - Out of the CAP: Tick - Out of the CFP: Tick - End to ever-closer union: Tick - No even hypothetical chance of getting involved in an EU Army: Tick - An end to ECJ jurisdiction in UK domestic law: Tick - An end to megapayments to the EU: Tick - Possibility of agreeing our own trade deals: Only half a tick, I concede
I've no idea why they no longer favour these things, but as I said, the fact that they don't means we no longer should feel obliged to respect the result of the first people's vote. If they don't want to take Yes for an answer, why on earth should those who preferred No in the first place disagree with their new position that the Brexit campaigned for is worse than Remain?
Hmm the only unqualified tick in that list is end to ever closer union, which probably wouldn't happen as members anyway. The others we don't know or are only likely to happen up to a point. Involvement in the EU Army is ironically more likely after Brexit as there's no longer any impediment to it happening and if it does so, we are quite likely to be involved in some way.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
May has her faults but I think that anyone who brought a deal with the EU back to the Commons as it is constituted would be getting the same treatment.
The ERG would remain twats, and too many MPs who voted to trigger A50 weren't prepared to accept that to so meant that they were running down the clock for leaving.
The funny thing is the ERG would have killed for this 3 years ago.
Which again, makes me wonder how many of them ever supported Brexit at all. I do think that for a lot of MPs, it's all part of some elaborate game that we don't know the rules of.
I think a lot of it is peer group pressure mixed with personal ambition and longstanding grudges.
That should end at school, but Westminster has a very peculiar culture.
Or maybe they can just see that this deal isn't very good.
What is it with the demonisation of anyone who represents the majority of the country that actually wants to leave the EU in a meaningful way?
What you repeatedly fail to get is there is no such thing as a good deal available and wishing for one won't make it happen. Reality sucks but there you are - this is what you voted for.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was; Cameron and Osborne went. The problem was that the new management were even worse.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
I suspect that the next few years will be troubling to put it mildly.
A renegotiation is actually good not just least bad. Of course the EU are claiming they're done but they need to. They thought they could get this deal through because they thought May would sign whatever was put in front of them. On that they were right but I don't think they ever seriously thought Parliament would say no. If it does they face a dilemma like we do.
Sure they could play hardball, continue to insist on the now dead deal or no deal. But they don't want no deal any more than we do. It's a threat not a goal.
Nobody will say now a renegotiation is viable but reality shows it as the path of least resistance.
If it is no deal Varadkar would also have to think about resigning. "I am sorry that Irish lorries can not use the land bridge."
Good discussion this morning, feels the quality of debate as gone up as the reality of cliff edges approaches!
Couple of thoughts: 1- lots of assumptions that may resigns after getting tonked in the Meaningful Vote. I'm not so sure she's the resigning type, her duty is to find a way through, somehow.
Those letters are going in as soon as the meaningful vote falls, unless May announces her resignation immediately.
She will have no choice by that point. Resign, or be machine gunned in the street by your own party.
Fortunately there's a PMQs the following day, where she can do the teary-eyed farewell legacy-building stuff, and the House can damn her with faint praise about her "resilience" and "sense of duty" and other such guff.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
You can't eliminate 3, as Corbyn sees it as his way into No.10, fantasy island notwithstanding.
Once there... he doesn't really care about Europe (as his followers here keep reminding us), while sliding over the unfortunate point that he doesn't really care about the economy, either.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
4 may not be as economicallty advantageous as people think. If we have another referendum and decide to remain we will be considered by our partners to be (at best) capricious or (at worst) unreliable. Neither of these are going to be good for business - after all we might decide to have another referendum next year....
It's possible that if we'd put the backstop on the referendum ballot paper things would have been very different.
The other thing is, the way May keeps going on about "ending free movement for good" and expecting applause and actually getting silence is another problem for May:
She simply doesn't understand what motivates remainers and leavers.
May doesn't like immigrants, so obviously giving immigrants a kicking and depriving UK citizens of the reciprocal rights we've had for 40 years obviously makes her very moist.
Unfortunately, it's not what the people about to her humiliate her on a colossal scale care about. And she's not getting the message.
Understand your audience, Theresa.
Agreed. I've despaired of May since even before the referendum. I lost all respect for May at the 2015 Tort Conference speech which was a bizarre rant against immigration. It was nasty and unnecessary and I was amazed she wasn't a Leaver after that. The only reason I can think why she wasn't given how nasty about free movement she was then is fear of leaving.
Thus instead of a sunny disposition, better times ahead Brexit we have had May's closed minded, small minded, fearful of leaving and fearful of migrants Brexit. Nasty, unpleasant, afraid and totally dominated by migration.
Interesting that the only part of Brexit that May genuinely believes in, ending free movement, is the only bit to survive.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
You can't eliminate 3, as Corbyn sees it as his way into No.10, fantasy island notwithstanding.
Once there... he doesn't really care about Europe (as his followers here keep reminding us), while sliding over the unfortunate point that he doesn't really care about the economy, either.
Any Corbynite (3) probably transitions into (2) at the point it is agreed with the EU.
Umm, and who replaces her exactly to pick up this mess?? We have to have a PM at all times. she wold still be PM until someone else is, so even that solves nothing.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
Who in the upper levels of the Conservatives has such skills?
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
4 may not be as economicallty advantageous as people think. If we have another referendum and decide to remain we will be considered by our partners to be (at best) capricious or (at worst) unreliable. Neither of these are going to be good for business - after all we might decide to have another referendum next year....
Thats another issue for another day.
what is going to be left of the Tory party after this is anyones guess.
My opinion, fwiw Beto O'Rourke has a decent chance of the presidency. He faced a big challenge in Texas and almost brought it off. On paper the challenge against Trump should be easier. He might even get the Texas college, which no recent Democrat president has achieved.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
Who in the upper levels of the Conservatives has such skills?
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
I suspect that the next few years will be troubling to put it mildly.
A renegotiation is actually good not just least bad. Of course the EU are claiming they're done but they need to. They thought they could get this deal through because they thought May would sign whatever was put in front of them. On that they were right but I don't think they ever seriously thought Parliament would say no. If it does they face a dilemma like we do.
Sure they could play hardball, continue to insist on the now dead deal or no deal. But they don't want no deal any more than we do. It's a threat not a goal.
Nobody will say now a renegotiation is viable but reality shows it as the path of least resistance.
If it is no deal Varadkar would also have to think about resigning. "I am sorry that Irish lorries can not use the land bridge."
Precisely! That is why it should be obvious despite claims to the contrary that a renegotiation is the ONLY viable outcome. Varadkar is a poker player who has gone all in convinced we would fold. May has tried to fold but Parliament is preventing that. He doesn't actually want a no deal showdown.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Yes the leader should have been one of the Leave campaigners, someone who knew and understood what they wanted and how they were going to [try to] get there.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Yes the leader should have been one of the Leave campaigners, someone who knew and understood what they wanted and how they were going to [try to] get there.
Andrea Leadsome?
I reckon she would have beaten May in the members vote.
All roads seem to point to May having to go - and go now. She's going to lose the vote, massively. Get the letters in, get her gone, save her the embarrassment. For one thing, it amply demonstrates how toxic this deal is in the UK in language the EU understand: "My god, she lost her job! Unthinkable....."
Another run around, with a new leader - who tries to get SOME movement from the EU against the back-drop of the ticking clock of No Deal. "Pop quiz, EU: What do you do?"
May will clearly never countenance this. Bye-bye time.
That is just plain silly. This deal needs full exposure to the HOC. The agenda can only move on after the vote. And as for a quick installation of a new leader that will not happen with the two extremes in my party fighting like rats in a sack
The site is full od Don Qs today tilting at unicorns - all will be easy peasy once May is gone. The EU will roll over and play ball. I cannot believe I'm reading it.
Indeed. And the very last thing needed is a coronation of a Unity candidate. None of any of these problems will be solved by changing the framed photo on Comservative club walls. They really need to have it out. In public. With blood on the floor. When they have decided what they want, then, and only then can we begin to move on.
Yeah, cos what we need is a bloody leadership contest whilst we're going full pelt towards no-deal in March.
Corbyn will be PM by Xmas in those circumstances.
Corbyn as PM of a minority government agreeing a permanent Customs Union and Boris as leader of the Opposition on a pure Brexit platform may end up being the least worst option for the country and the Tory Party now
Boris is never the least worst option for anything.
If May goes she takes all Chequers and Deal backers with her leaving Boris the likely successor
Most Conservative MPs hate him. They hate everyone, but him in particular.
There are enough Leavers to get him in the final 2 and most members love Boris as Yougov and Con home polls attest. Boris will succeed May if she goes
He is surely now far too widely perceived to be a vile human being.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Yes the leader should have been one of the Leave campaigners, someone who knew and understood what they wanted and how they were going to [try to] get there.
Andrea Leadsome?
I reckon she would have beaten May in the members vote.
In hindsight even she would have been better than May
I wonder if either May or Corbyn will accuse the other of cobbling together a meaningless compromise purely to appease warring factions within their own irreconcilable coalition.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Yes the leader should have been one of the Leave campaigners, someone who knew and understood what they wanted and how they were going to [try to] get there.
Andrea Leadsome?
I reckon she would have beaten May in the members vote.
With her as leader, No Deal would be a certainty IMO...
All roads seem to point to May having to go - and go now. She's going to lose the vote, massively. Get the letters in, get her gone, save her the embarrassment. For one thing, it amply demonstrates how toxic this deal is in the UK in language the EU understand: "My god, she lost her job! Unthinkable....."
Another run around, with a new leader - who tries to get SOME movement from the EU against the back-drop of the ticking clock of No Deal. "Pop quiz, EU: What do you do?"
May will clearly never countenance this. Bye-bye time.
That is just plain silly. This deal needs full exposure to the HOC. The agenda can only move on after the vote. And as for a quick installation of a new leader that will not happen with the two extremes in my party fighting like rats in a sack
The site is full od Don Qs today tilting at unicorns - all will be easy peasy once May is gone. The EU will roll over and play ball. I cannot believe I'm reading it.
Indeed. And the very last thing needed is a coronation of a Unity candidate. None of any of these problems will be solved by changing the framed photo on Comservative club walls. They really need to have it out. In public. With blood on the floor. When they have decided what they want, then, and only then can we begin to move on.
Yeah, cos what we need is a bloody leadership contest whilst we're going full pelt towards no-deal in March.
Corbyn will be PM by Xmas in those circumstances.
Corbyn as PM of a minority government agreeing a permanent Customs Union and Boris as leader of the Opposition on a pure Brexit platform may end up being the least worst option for the country and the Tory Party now
Boris is never the least worst option for anything.
If May goes she takes all Chequers and Deal backers with her leaving Boris the likely successor
Most Conservative MPs hate him. They hate everyone, but him in particular.
There are enough Leavers to get him in the final 2 and most members love Boris as Yougov and Con home polls attest. Boris will succeed May if she goes
He is surely now far too widely perceived to be a vile human being.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
I suspect that the next few years will be troubling to put it mildly.
The Withdrawal Agreement is fixed, probably even with Remain, although that result would make it redundant. But the End State is open: CU+SM, Canada, Remain, Limited Deal. Limited Deal doesn't seem to have much point if we accept the WA, which we would need to for ANY agreed arrangement at ANY time with the EU. Canada means activating the backstop and doesn't allow free flow for supply chains.
The only realistic long term options that I see are SM+CU (vassal state) or EU membership. The rest is displacement activity and in the case of No Deal, highly destructive displacement activity.
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Alternatively the legal advice is more horrific than imagined so draw your own conclusions.
>@ralphmalph In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence. @dixiedean
Maybe the Barwell meeting has hammered home the fact that there won't be many. The initial reaction on PB was that either Labour would whip to abstain, or would rebel in droves. Thus would Theresa deliver her deal and retire with the grateful thanks of a nation. Neither of these seems Likely.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
The must be the same bubble that May was in when she had the brilliant idea of calling a general election.
She probably did need to hold and win that election (350+ MPs) to have enough political capital and authority to get the deal through parliament. The Cameroon numbers wouldn't have been enough.
The must be the same bubble that May was in when she had the brilliant idea of calling a general election.
Back to that Matthew Parris article, 2 days after the vote...
It is likely that by the spring of next year a general election will have been called. True, the new rules make early dissolution difficult unless it’s the general will of the Commons; but the media, the opposition and the SNP will want it, many Tories will acknowledge a need for it, and Nigel Farage’s observation yesterday that to negotiate Brexit we need “a Brexit government” will surely ring true. The years until 2020 will be critical in our history as our leaders redesign Britain’s place in Europe and the world. During the referendum campaign the Leave leadership was emphatic that they offered no government-style manifesto for this. For the next stage they will need one.
According to the timetable the prime minister has announced, a new leader of the Conservative Party, and therefore prime minister, will be in place by October. I expect the frontrunners to be Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and possibly Stephen Crabb. Of these, only one can really be called the continuity candidate, and that is Mrs May. Mr Johnson has never held ministerial office; Mr Crabb would be almost unknown.
You can just about argue that as a senior and experienced member of the cabinet, never at daggers drawn with the prime minister during the referendum campaign, and staying largely above the fray, Mrs May could step in and carry on. Her move to Downing Street might not feel like a lurch that demands a general election to validate it. She was a leading member of the team for which Britain voted in 2015.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
The deal is a turd.
I'm pleased there are enough MPs that are going to vote against it.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
That is certainly true of Cameron but it's been widely reported that Osborne bitterly opposed the idea of holding a referendum and argued strongly against it. Very prescient as things turned out. Hague, on the other hand, took Cameron's side.
I attended a birthday party on Sunday, where a rather good magician called 'Mister Marvel' entertained the children for two hours.
I'm thinking of giving our little 'un a party next year, for his fifth birthday. I wonder if Boris is available for hire? I'm sure he'll be a big hit as he replays all his favourites: the hanging-from-a-zipwire-whilst-waving-flags, or the cor-cripes-I'm-a-bumbling-fool monologues.
And at least it'll keep him from doing any serious damage to the country.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
Because it is legal advice on the WDA and PD, not on the referendum.
I note that nobody here seems to think a renegotiation is a bad idea, just that it won't fly. That's not a reason not to try.
It's a bad idea because it won't fly. A renegotiation is only worthwhile if it's actually going to achieve something. Meanwhile, the Brexit clock is ticking.
I'd like to buy a brand new Aston Martin for a tenner. That would be great. It wouldn't be a good idea to keep pushing for it.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
And... Boom, Theresa May steps on another landmine.
Can the Labour party take legal action against the government to ensure the terms of the Humble Address are followed?
Regardless, this is another classic May move. Pisses off Labour, pisses off her backbenchers, makes her look shifty and undemocratic. Opens herself up to constitutional and legal shenanigans to make her change her mind, and for what?
We all know the the AG's legal advice on the backstop was scathing. What possible advantage does May see in being shifty and censorious about advice whose general outline we've already been told?
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
No, Cameron was living in a bubble where HE couldn't possibly lose. He had thwarted the SNP's push for independence in 2014 and had won a GE majority against all the odds in 2015. He must have thought he had the people behind him and they would trust and support him no matter what.
Had he come back from his re-negotiation with any kind of sell-able deal (and if we'd remembered that we'd have had a clue as to what was waiting for May) he'd likely have walked the referendum but he didn't because the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him a deal which he could sell because that mean exiting the SM and probably the CU as well.
So, in the absence of anything else, all Cameron had was his own persuasive powers and he must have thought after 2014 and 2015, he could do it again just as Clegg must have thought he could get AV passed in 2011.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
Talking of Boris, have we noticed this little bomblet?
It can now be revealed that UAE claims Hedges’ release could have been secured in the summer but was prolonged partly due to insufficient high-level assurances by the Foreign Office that he was not a spy.
It has been suggested that Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary until 9 July, was not seen as a reliable pair of hands after he bungled aspects of the Foreign Office efforts to release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
Tejada has said she was “very cautious” about Johnson and concerned his “flippant comments would hurt Matt’s case”.
One Emirati source said: “This is a very peculiar case that has left scars on both sides. People feel genuinely hurt and do not understand why it was not resolved back in July.”
And... Boom, Theresa May steps on another landmine.
Can the Labour party take legal action against the government to ensure the terms of the Humble Address are followed?
Regardless, this is another classic May move. Pisses off Labour, pisses off her backbenchers, makes her look shifty and undemocratic. Opens herself up to constitutional and legal shenanigans to make her change her mind, and for what?
We all know the the AG's legal advice on the backstop was scathing. What possible advantage does May see in being shifty and censorious about advice whose general outline we've already been told?
Never sign a guarantee unless you're prepared to honour it; never make a threat unless you're willing to carry it out; and never vote for a measure, unless you're prepared to implement it.
The government might have done the honourable thing in carrying out the referendum, but it seems abundantly clearly that they really didn't seriously consider the "wrong" result happening. In most businesses there would be an immediate and widespread clear out of management after a cock-up of that magnitude.
There was. The CEO resigned immediately. The CFO was fired. Problem was the chief of security took control without having any personality or clue on what to do next.
I think it's highly debatable that there was enough change in leadership, we have been governed by people unprepared for Leave winning, and are now governed by many of the same people who are unprepared for No Deal. Collectively their ability to assess risk seems to be quite useless.
Yes the leader should have been one of the Leave campaigners, someone who knew and understood what they wanted and how they were going to [try to] get there.
Andrea Leadsome?
I reckon she would have beaten May in the members vote.
Yes I think she would have. But she would not have been any better than May at conjuring up the Brexit unicorns.
Talking of Boris, have we noticed this little bomblet?
It can now be revealed that UAE claims Hedges’ release could have been secured in the summer but was prolonged partly due to insufficient high-level assurances by the Foreign Office that he was not a spy.
It has been suggested that Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary until 9 July, was not seen as a reliable pair of hands after he bungled aspects of the Foreign Office efforts to release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
Tejada has said she was “very cautious” about Johnson and concerned his “flippant comments would hurt Matt’s case”.
One Emirati source said: “This is a very peculiar case that has left scars on both sides. People feel genuinely hurt and do not understand why it was not resolved back in July.”
The Humble Address petitioned the government to release the attorney general's legal guidance on the deal.
The HA was passed unanimously because the government didn't oppose it and push it to a vote.
But what the government is proposing to release is not the AG's professional legal guidance that the backstop is a constitutional and legal outrage with no escape, but Geoffrey Cox's personal political opinion.
That's not what Labour asked for, that's not what the Humbled Address said, that's not what is going to placate Labour and her backbenchers, and it's not, most importantly, what the government promised.
This is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation for May.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
I think there’s a principle that this sort of thing stays private.
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
No, Cameron was living in a bubble where HE couldn't possibly lose. He had thwarted the SNP's push for independence in 2014 and had won a GE majority against all the odds in 2015. He must have thought he had the people behind him and they would trust and support him no matter what.
Had he come back from his re-negotiation with any kind of sell-able deal (and if we'd remembered that we'd have had a clue as to what was waiting for May) he'd likely have walked the referendum but he didn't because the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him a deal which he could sell because that mean exiting the SM and probably the CU as well.
So, in the absence of anything else, all Cameron had was his own persuasive powers and he must have thought after 2014 and 2015, he could do it again just as Clegg must have thought he could get AV passed in 2011.
But he promised the EU referendum before either the 2015 election or the Scottish indyref.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
I think there’s a principle that this sort of thing stays private.
Maybe they shouldn't have agreed to do the opposite.
Still, there's a general principle, and there's the "do whatever you need to not make your catastrophic situation any worse".
Going back on your word and trying to suppress evidence that your deal is catastrophic is *going to make things worse*.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
I think there’s a principle that this sort of thing stays private.
Maybe they shouldn't have agreed to do the opposite.
Still, there's a general principle, and there's the "do whatever you need to not make your catastrophic situation any worse".
Going back on your word and trying to suppress evidence that your deal is catastrophic is *going to make things worse*.
Weren’t they talking about releasing a top-level summary and not the nitty-gritty?
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
5. If a referendum in time is problematic, revoke A50 without a referendum, ruling out re-invokation for a 2 year period. Remain until end of 2024 EU budget cycle and use the time to (a) Investigate alternative transitions, including dual membership and a transfer of undertakings to EFTA and any other plan and (b) develop and even deploy the Irish border solution.
The optics again are horrible - very drawn out, looks like Remaining, still a hard sell on the democracy front, admission of failure, EU need to agree, GE22! But this is the kind of ''Remain" I would like to see, if it gets to that.
Yes I think she would have. But she would not have been any better than May at conjuring up the Brexit unicorns.
She really wouldn't have won, believe me. I was at a party fund-raising dinner (a constituency evening for ordinary members, not mega donors) at the point when they were the only two candidates left standing, and inevitably there was much talk about the contest. Only one person said he'd support Andrea Leadsom, to general astonishment. Basically hardly anyone knew much about her, whereas Theresa May was near-universally seen as a safe pair of hands and a unifying figure. (Wrongly seen, as it turned out!)
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then. Pure incompetence.
Maybe it is not incompetence, maybe the legal advice is "The referendum is non-binding and you can stop Brexit at any time" which would not be popular in govt circles. Why publicise that the screw-up does not have to happen?
That wouldn't be news, we've known that all along and even the Supreme Court has ruled on that. This new legal advice is meant to be about the legal implications of the backstop etc isn't it?
Who knows? They will not say but I suspect that the legal advice is telling them what they do not want to hear, because if it said exactly what they wanted it would be published with fanfares.
I think there’s a principle that this sort of thing stays private.
The Humble Address petitioned the government to release the attorney general's legal guidance on the deal.
The HA was passed unanimously because the government didn't oppose it and push it to a vote.
But what the government is proposing to release is not the AG's professional legal guidance that the backstop is a constitutional and legal outrage with no escape, but Geoffrey Cox's personal political opinion.
That's not what Labour asked for, that's not what the Humbled Address said, that's not what is going to placate Labour and her backbenchers, and it's not, most importantly, what the government promised.
This is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation for May.
I attended a birthday party on Sunday, where a rather good magician called 'Mister Marvel' entertained the children for two hours.
I'm thinking of giving our little 'un a party next year, for his fifth birthday. I wonder if Boris is available for hire? I'm sure he'll be a big hit as he replays all his favourites: the hanging-from-a-zipwire-whilst-waving-flags, or the cor-cripes-I'm-a-bumbling-fool monologues.
And at least it'll keep him from doing any serious damage to the country.
Gonna blow a big hole in your children's party budget I imagine. I'd stick with the magician: cheaper, safer, more reliable.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
5. If a referendum in time is problematic, revoke A50 without a referendum, ruling out re-invokation for a 2 year period. Remain until end of 2024 EU budget cycle and use the time to (a) Investigate alternative transitions, including dual membership and a transfer of undertakings to EFTA and any other plan and (b) develop and even deploy the Irish border solution.
The optics again are horrible - very drawn out, looks like Remaining, still a hard sell on the democracy front, admission of failure, EU need to agree, GE22! But this is the kind of ''Remain" I would like to see, if it gets to that.
Remains to be seen if Article 50 can be revoked. My money is on no.
I'm increasingly convinced that there is no possible good outcome.
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
No.
2. is, I think, least bad.
1. Is politically very pure following from the referendum but economically disastrous. 2. Won't fly through the Commons. 3. Won't fly through the EU. 4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1. 3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it. 2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum. (4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
5. If a referendum in time is problematic, revoke A50 without a referendum, ruling out re-invokation for a 2 year period. Remain until end of 2024 EU budget cycle and use the time to (a) Investigate alternative transitions, including dual membership and a transfer of undertakings to EFTA and any other plan and (b) develop and even deploy the Irish border solution.
The optics again are horrible - very drawn out, looks like Remaining, still a hard sell on the democracy front, admission of failure, EU need to agree, GE22! But this is the kind of ''Remain" I would like to see, if it gets to that.
I think the most popular option will be to do nothing, and blame one's opponents.
And... Boom, Theresa May steps on another landmine.
Can the Labour party take legal action against the government to ensure the terms of the Humble Address are followed?
Regardless, this is another classic May move. Pisses off Labour, pisses off her backbenchers, makes her look shifty and undemocratic. Opens herself up to constitutional and legal shenanigans to make her change her mind, and for what?
We all know the the AG's legal advice on the backstop was scathing. What possible advantage does May see in being shifty and censorious about advice whose general outline we've already been told?
And in essence, to whom does the advice belong? The people who elect the government and fund the nation with taxes, by any chance?
Excessive secrecy is one of the tools to kill democracy with.
Cameron and Osborne were living in a bubble where Remain couldn't possibly lose.
No, Cameron was living in a bubble where HE couldn't possibly lose. He had thwarted the SNP's push for independence in 2014 and had won a GE majority against all the odds in 2015. He must have thought he had the people behind him and they would trust and support him no matter what.
Had he come back from his re-negotiation with any kind of sell-able deal (and if we'd remembered that we'd have had a clue as to what was waiting for May) he'd likely have walked the referendum but he didn't because the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him a deal which he could sell because that mean exiting the SM and probably the CU as well.
So, in the absence of anything else, all Cameron had was his own persuasive powers and he must have thought after 2014 and 2015, he could do it again just as Clegg must have thought he could get AV passed in 2011.
Except Cameron's deal was quite good.
It was at the time, and is even more so with hindsight, given the chaos that has occurred.
What he didn't do is sell it well, but that was an almost impossible task when faced with idiots who reject something before they even read it.
Comments
june 25 2016, 12:01am, the times
Best to start with the obvious. Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith, propped up by Nigel Farage, are not viable as a new British government. They just aren’t. Trust me: this will be a shambles.
A huge bust-up lies ahead. Our experiment in direct democracy is hurtling towards our tradition of representative democracy like some giant asteroid towards a moon. Within a year an irresistible force will collide with an object called parliament: an object that, if not immovable, will be harder to move than anyone imagines.
The Times has estimated that about 160 of the 650 MPs elected last year want Britain to leave the EU. The overwhelming majority of Westminster MPs believes that leaving would be a mistake. Many believe it would be a very grave mistake. Not a few believe it would be calamitous. But parliament did vote to hold the referendum — and, by implication, to respect its result. This is clear. What can never be known is how many of those parliamentarians thought the plebiscite would result in an instruction to leave the EU. I certainly didn’t.
Well I was wrong. We know now. And in due course, as Britain’s exit proceeds, there will be crucial Commons votes. What are Remain Tory MPs to do? Break faith with the referendum they voted for, in many cases too lightly? How dare they. Or break faith with what their own judgments and conscience tell them are the interests of constituents and country alike? How could they.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pity-voters-deceived-by-the-pied-pipers-of-brexit-vz3hpfm9x
1. No deal. A disaster waiting to happen, and yet quite probably the most likely outcome right now.
2. May's deal. The transition is at best tolerable, and it only sketches the final FTA deal. Nobody seems to like this deal, so it is unlikely to pass the HoC.
3. A renegotiated deal. This seems to be nothing more than fairy dust right now. Every man and his dog appears to have a different favoured alternative, and yet the EU say they are done negotiating.
4. A second referendum. Even assuming it could be agreed and done in time, there's no explanation as to how it resolves the issue. If Remain won it I think we can safely assume that Leavers will be even more pissed off than before.
Does anybody think there is a plausible outcome which is actually good, rather than merely the least bad?
I suspect that the next few years will be troubling to put it mildly.
Parliament is different. Parliament is going to stand firm. That changes things. As I believe it was Keynes who said "when the facts change, I change my mind". We can't rule out Parliament being more successful than May.
The other thing is, the way May keeps going on about "ending free movement for good" and expecting applause and actually getting silence is another problem for May:
She simply doesn't understand what motivates remainers and leavers.
May doesn't like immigrants, so obviously giving immigrants a kicking and depriving UK citizens of the reciprocal rights we've had for 40 years obviously makes her very moist.
Unfortunately, it's not what the people about to her humiliate her on a colossal scale care about. And she's not getting the message.
Understand your audience, Theresa.
2. is, I think, least bad.
Any meetings where you have members of the Opposition turning up to be persuaded starts with "Thank you for coming. How can we make this happen?"
You listen, you don't talk. You attempt to find solutions. You bribe, cajole, re-assure, flatter, encourage.
You do not drone on in front of a presentation. Is that really not blindingly obvious?
And look at his massive forehead and tiny beady eyes. It'd be like being lectured by an embryo.
Sure they could play hardball, continue to insist on the now dead deal or no deal. But they don't want no deal any more than we do. It's a threat not a goal.
Nobody will say now a renegotiation is viable but reality shows it as the path of least resistance.
Couple of thoughts:
1- lots of assumptions that may resigns after getting tonked in the Meaningful Vote. I'm not so sure she's the resigning type, her duty is to find a way through, somehow.
2- the idea that we can go back to Brussels with a wishlist of changes is barking mad, what extra concessions could we offer if we wanted any extra leverage on the backstop? That's a more realistic question if we are serious about improving the deal.
3- I think it has to be 3 options by AV if it does go to another referendum. If there are only 2, supporters of the third will cry foul, the legitimacy will be questioned and there could be a lower turnout. All the attempts to order the questions look like a stitch up, I'm increasingly thinking it has to be first choice, second choice with the 3 options treated equivalently. Same as London Mayor, PCC elections etc.
4- time to sod the electoral commission. We're not hanging around 6 months, parliament agrees the wording, let the political parties do the campaigning so no time registering campaigns etc.
5-@Jonathan is absolutely right to correct the fantasy options: we have three options for April remain, leave with deal leave without deal. That's it.
6- I hope the PM stays above the fray in any referendum campaign. They need to be able to implement any option, and should step back from campaigning. Plenty of minions to take sides we need someone who can unite the country, and they won't be able to do it having got stuck into campaigning.
2. Won't fly through the Commons.
3. Won't fly through the EU.
4. Is economically very advantageous but politically horrible.
My ranked preference would be 3, 2, 4, 1.
3 is complete fantasy island stuff though, so we can eliminate it.
2 looks unlikely to fly - so that leaves us with another referendum.
(4) Which sickens me, but better than a crash out.
She will have no choice by that point. Resign, or be machine gunned in the street by your own party.
Fortunately there's a PMQs the following day, where she can do the teary-eyed farewell legacy-building stuff, and the House can damn her with faint praise about her "resilience" and "sense of duty" and other such guff.
And then it's off for lunch with Her Maj.
Once there... he doesn't really care about Europe (as his followers here keep reminding us), while sliding over the unfortunate point that he doesn't really care about the economy, either.
Thus instead of a sunny disposition, better times ahead Brexit we have had May's closed minded, small minded, fearful of leaving and fearful of migrants Brexit. Nasty, unpleasant, afraid and totally dominated by migration.
Interesting that the only part of Brexit that May genuinely believes in, ending free movement, is the only bit to survive.
Well that’s put the kibosh on the panda breeding programme.
what is going to be left of the Tory party after this is anyones guess.
I reckon she would have beaten May in the members vote.
Pure incompetence.
The only realistic long term options that I see are SM+CU (vassal state) or EU membership. The rest is displacement activity and in the case of No Deal, highly destructive displacement activity.
In the news now that the Govt will not release the full legal advice on the deal. Labour up in arms about it. So Tory Govt strategists - we need Labour votes to get the deal through or minimise the vote against, right ho, lets really annoy them then.
Pure incompetence.
@dixiedean
Maybe the Barwell meeting has hammered home the fact that there won't be many. The initial reaction on PB was that either Labour would whip to abstain, or would rebel in droves. Thus would Theresa deliver her deal and retire with the grateful thanks of a nation. Neither of these seems Likely.
The Cameroon numbers wouldn't have been enough.
It is likely that by the spring of next year a general election will have been called. True, the new rules make early dissolution difficult unless it’s the general will of the Commons; but the media, the opposition and the SNP will want it, many Tories will acknowledge a need for it, and Nigel Farage’s observation yesterday that to negotiate Brexit we need “a Brexit government” will surely ring true. The years until 2020 will be critical in our history as our leaders redesign Britain’s place in Europe and the world. During the referendum campaign the Leave leadership was emphatic that they offered no government-style manifesto for this. For the next stage they will need one.
According to the timetable the prime minister has announced, a new leader of the Conservative Party, and therefore prime minister, will be in place by October. I expect the frontrunners to be Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and possibly Stephen Crabb. Of these, only one can really be called the continuity candidate, and that is Mrs May. Mr Johnson has never held ministerial office; Mr Crabb would be almost unknown.
You can just about argue that as a senior and experienced member of the cabinet, never at daggers drawn with the prime minister during the referendum campaign, and staying largely above the fray, Mrs May could step in and carry on. Her move to Downing Street might not feel like a lurch that demands a general election to validate it. She was a leading member of the team for which Britain voted in 2015.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pity-voters-deceived-by-the-pied-pipers-of-brexit-vz3hpfm9x
I'm pleased there are enough MPs that are going to vote against it.
I'm thinking of giving our little 'un a party next year, for his fifth birthday. I wonder if Boris is available for hire? I'm sure he'll be a big hit as he replays all his favourites: the hanging-from-a-zipwire-whilst-waving-flags, or the cor-cripes-I'm-a-bumbling-fool monologues.
And at least it'll keep him from doing any serious damage to the country.
I'd like to buy a brand new Aston Martin for a tenner. That would be great. It wouldn't be a good idea to keep pushing for it.
Can the Labour party take legal action against the government to ensure the terms of the Humble Address are followed?
Regardless, this is another classic May move. Pisses off Labour, pisses off her backbenchers, makes her look shifty and undemocratic. Opens herself up to constitutional and legal shenanigans to make her change her mind, and for what?
We all know the the AG's legal advice on the backstop was scathing. What possible advantage does May see in being shifty and censorious about advice whose general outline we've already been told?
Had he come back from his re-negotiation with any kind of sell-able deal (and if we'd remembered that we'd have had a clue as to what was waiting for May) he'd likely have walked the referendum but he didn't because the EU couldn't or wouldn't give him a deal which he could sell because that mean exiting the SM and probably the CU as well.
So, in the absence of anything else, all Cameron had was his own persuasive powers and he must have thought after 2014 and 2015, he could do it again just as Clegg must have thought he could get AV passed in 2011.
It can now be revealed that UAE claims Hedges’ release could have been secured in the summer but was prolonged partly due to insufficient high-level assurances by the Foreign Office that he was not a spy.
It has been suggested that Boris Johnson, who was foreign secretary until 9 July, was not seen as a reliable pair of hands after he bungled aspects of the Foreign Office efforts to release Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
Tejada has said she was “very cautious” about Johnson and concerned his “flippant comments would hurt Matt’s case”.
One Emirati source said: “This is a very peculiar case that has left scars on both sides. People feel genuinely hurt and do not understand why it was not resolved back in July.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/27/matthew-hedges-jailed-academic-returns-to-uk-after-uae-pardon
She really isn't very good is she?
The HA was passed unanimously because the government didn't oppose it and push it to a vote.
But what the government is proposing to release is not the AG's professional legal guidance that the backstop is a constitutional and legal outrage with no escape, but Geoffrey Cox's personal political opinion.
That's not what Labour asked for, that's not what the Humbled Address said, that's not what is going to placate Labour and her backbenchers, and it's not, most importantly, what the government promised.
This is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation for May.
Still, there's a general principle, and there's the "do whatever you need to not make your catastrophic situation any worse".
Going back on your word and trying to suppress evidence that your deal is catastrophic is *going to make things worse*.
The optics again are horrible - very drawn out, looks like Remaining, still a hard sell on the democracy front, admission of failure, EU need to agree, GE22! But this is the kind of ''Remain" I would like to see, if it gets to that.
Excessive secrecy is one of the tools to kill democracy with.
It was at the time, and is even more so with hindsight, given the chaos that has occurred.
What he didn't do is sell it well, but that was an almost impossible task when faced with idiots who reject something before they even read it.