The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
Donald Tusk has made it clear that there is no scope for re-negotiation. Take what's there, No Deal or pull back (if possible, on Article 50.
Or, Deal/ No Deal and re-apply for membership!
Donald Tusk still has some explaining to do as to how they got to No Deal. Blew huge amounts of cash, and left an unrestricted potential Super-Singapore on their border (with Ireland).
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
Buuut, it's not a suboptimal outcome for the combatants in the Tory civil war and that's the important thing.
Surely the end of the Tory civil war is coming to an end with brexit.After 50 years or so.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
Buuut, it's not a suboptimal outcome for the combatants in the Tory civil war and that's the important thing.
Surely the end of the Tory civil war is coming to an end with brexit.After 50 years or so.
Civil wars only end when either one side has been decisively crushed, or the primary combatants all die of old age.
Must say that Parliament must vote for this deal because it voted for Article 50 is a somewhat weak argument. Not only can Parliament change its mind, it ignores the fact that that was a different Parliament. This Parliament was never asked. What happened to "No Parliament can bind its successors"?
They're not bound. But most of them were elected on manifestos promising that we would leave, so they should consider carefully if they are going to prioritise remaining over some form of Brexit (no dealers obviously would not be satisfied). I hope they are considering it carefully.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
Too late for logic now.
10 days to one of the most epic days in British politics
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
Buuut, it's not a suboptimal outcome for the combatants in the Tory civil war and that's the important thing.
Surely the end of the Tory civil war is coming to an end with brexit.After 50 years or so.
Civil wars only end when either one side has been decisively crushed, or the primary combatants all die of old age.
And I'm a Green, a remainer and a supporter of Scottish Independence. The Deal is crap, as all achievable Brexit deals are doomed to be, but people voted for Brexit so thus the cookie crumbles.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. ke.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
Donald Tusk has made it clear that there is no scope for re-negotiation. Take what's there, No Deal or pull back (if possible, on Article 50.
Or, Deal/ No Deal and re-apply for membership!
Donald Tusk still has some explaining to do as to how they got to No Deal. Blew huge amounts of cash, and left an unrestricted potential Super-Singapore on their border (with Ireland).
But hey, his job will be safe.
I understand he is looking to stand as Polish leader. Expect he will leave for Polish politics soon
Julian the Apostate holds the record for most flawlessly won civil war in history. His rival, Constantius II, died of an illness, naming Julian as his successor before he passed away.
Pestilence can do the job just as well as age.
On the UK/EU situation, if we leave it's possible the EU will accelerate integration to diminish the chance of anyone else following, but that would also raise the bar for UK re-entry.
Off topic anyone think Tyson Fury can win and is worth a punt ?
It depends if the old Klitskho beating Fury turns up. That Fury could very well have been the worlds best by quite a distance. He has not fought much quality up this fight and Wilder is quality. My decision making criteria is will Wilder knock him out or will Fury box him for 12 rounds and win on points.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I suspect 'New Prime Minister' is the default, and, as May has said several times in recent days "we are back to square one". New PM, new negotiation / GE / 2nd Referendum. Certainly not a No Deal Brexit.
Donald Tusk has made it clear that there is no scope for re-negotiation. Take what's there, No Deal or pull back (if possible, on Article 50.
Or, Deal/ No Deal and re-apply for membership!
Donald Tusk still has some explaining to do as to how they got to No Deal. Blew huge amounts of cash, and left an unrestricted potential Super-Singapore on their border (with Ireland).
And I'm a Green, a remainer and a supporter of Scottish Independence. The Deal is crap, as all achievable Brexit deals are doomed to be, but people voted for Brexit so thus the cookie crumbles.
Every chance you will get everything you want , second referendum cannot be far away unless they choose remain in the end.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
Too late for logic now.
10 days to one of the most epic days in British politics
No its not too late. If the deal gets approved its too late for logic, if the deal goes down then everyone will be scrambling to think "what now?" Not just us, but the EU and the Irish too. At that point logic kicks in.
Sure the EU and Irish having pushed too far and been rebuffed could decide to stick to their guns. They could stare into the abyss and think "yes let's jump into that". Or they could blink. Its possible.
Donald Tusk still has some explaining to do as to how they got to No Deal. Blew huge amounts of cash, and left an unrestricted potential Super-Singapore on their border (with Ireland).
If there was a Labour leader who wasn't a Communist, then the Tories would be dead. TBH the Tories should be dead, even with a Communist Leader of the opposition.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
I’ll be the one who agrees with you.
If the government falls in a fortnight’s time over the deal not being ratified, then the new PM (likely to be Conservative and more of a Leaver than the incumbent) will have as their first task in office to go back to the EU and tell them to get back around the table and renegotiate to avoid no-deal.
The question then becomes how close to the line will the EU take the rising probability of no-deal, before they realise that both sides screwed up the initial negotiations and everyone needs to act quickly and co-operatively to walk away from the cliff edge.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
Too late for logic now.
10 days to one of the most epic days in British politics
No its not too late. If the deal gets approved its too late for logic, if the deal goes down then everyone will be scrambling to think "what now?" Not just us, but the EU and the Irish too. At that point logic kicks in.
Sure the EU and Irish having pushed too far and been rebuffed could decide to stick to their guns. They could stare into the abyss and think "yes let's jump into that". Or they could blink. Its possible.
You are to be admired for your consistent fight for your cause but I really do expect you to be disappointed if you hope for a no deal brexit
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
If there was a Labour leader who wasn't a Communist, then the Tories would be dead. TBH the Tories should be dead, even with a Communist Leader of the opposition.
And a 5% conservative lead in yesterdays poll and an electoral calculus of a majority of 10
Labour may find their opposition to the deal to get a GE will have a negative effect for them
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
I agree. Peston also suggests that her absolute refusal to acknowledge any alternative makes it much more likely that someone else will have to take over: "they will on Friday feel more obliged to reject and oust her pronto, if as expected they throw out her deal - because how could they support a PM so fatalistic and negative about finding a negotiated backstop-free Brexit?"
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I am not sure it is possible to add an amendment on a second referendum because that would only happen if the vote is carried, and if the vote is carried it means May's deal is implemented (so a second referendum would not be applicable).
I believe it would make the deal subject to a referendum but I stand ready to be corrected
Adding such an amendment would surely make it even less likely to be passed - resulting in defaulting to WTO deal?
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
I am not sure it is possible to add an amendment on a second referendum because that would only happen if the vote is carried, and if the vote is carried it means May's deal is implemented (so a second referendum would not be applicable).
I believe it would make the deal subject to a referendum but I stand ready to be corrected
Adding such an amendment would surely make it even less likely to be passed - resulting in defaulting to WTO deal?
Probably but if passed a referendum it is.
And no WTO only happens if the HOC vote for it over TM deal at the end of the meaningful vote
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
That assumes No Deal is a sustainable end state for the UK. The EU presumably believes not. I don't think so either. Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable, even if it's never going to be an actual success.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
The alternatives are mostly mutually exclusive with what they're voting on, aren't they? Can you really have an amendment that says "actually forget that, do something totally different instead"?
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
I just don't understand this at all. ERG want a true believer to become PM and restart negotiations. Labour wants a GE so they can take a crack at it. Some or all People's Voters will want a referendum without this deal as an option. How can any of those be amendments?
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
With respect I do not think you appreciate the process under this procedure
I fully understand the process. May argues her case to the nation, and we are then meant to urge our MPs to vote the way we want them to. Well, May has failed to persuade me of the merits of her deal, so I am very happy that my MP will be voting against. That he gets to take his better half into the lobby with him is just icing on the cake.
You have just made my case.
Under the meaningful vote each amendment will be voted on including second referendum, no deal, moving A50, labours wrecking deal, norway etc, and as each falls the final meaningful deal with be on TM deal. In those circumstances the HOC will vote for, as anything else will collapse the markets as all other options are exhausted and no deal is default
The only caveat is of course that if any amendment passed and was attached to the meaningful vote, the attached amendment on the deal would pass
It is not just get my mp to take it down. It is more complex than that
The alternatives are mostly mutually exclusive with what they're voting on, aren't they? Can you really have an amendment that says "actually forget that, do something totally different instead"?
Yes to a degree but it depends on Bercow, yes him, deciding the amendments to call
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
That would be true if there was one shot at this and that was the end of the matter. Its not.
For those of us who want to renegotiate then no amendment offers that. Only the defeat of this deal forcing the negotiators back to the table does. You can't vote on something that's not on offer, only approve or decline what is.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
That assumes No Deal is a sustainable end state for the UK. The EU presumably believes not. I don't think so either. Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable, even if it's never going to be an actual success.
It is a sustainable end state. Its a suboptimal one, but its sustainable.
The EU presumably believed we wouldn't vote for Brexit. We did. The EU presumably believed we wouldn't turn down their deal. We might.
Cameron and May both tried to negotiate with the EU and both made the fatal flaw of being obviously unprepared to walk away. There's enough time left for just one more attempt at negotiations, it needs to be led by someone who is completely prepared to walk away. Call their bluff. Deal or no deal.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
"No deal is better than a bad deal" T May.
Indeed. Which is the very slogan which was in vogue at GE 2017. The one at which Conservative MPs were elected. If they consider it to be a Bad Deal then they are surely fulfilling election promises by voting against? Especially since the default would be No Deal, which fulfills manifesto commitments.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
That would be true if there was one shot at this and that was the end of the matter. Its not.
For those of us who want to renegotiate then no amendment offers that. Only the defeat of this deal forcing the negotiators back to the table does. You can't vote on something that's not on offer, only approve or decline what is.
Correction - only the defeat of the deal might force the negotiators back to the table.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
"No deal is better than a bad deal" T May.
Yes, well, she didn't mean it.
And equally as that phrase, no brexit is better than a bad brexit. And since many people say they want a better deal, no no deal, then if they cannot get a better deal some of them will think no brexit is better.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
Too late for logic now.
10 days to one of the most epic days in British politics
No its not too late. If the deal gets approved its too late for logic, if the deal goes down then everyone will be scrambling to think "what now?" Not just us, but the EU and the Irish too. At that point logic kicks in.
Sure the EU and Irish having pushed too far and been rebuffed could decide to stick to their guns. They could stare into the abyss and think "yes let's jump into that". Or they could blink. Its possible.
You are to be admired for your consistent fight for your cause but I really do expect you to be disappointed if you hope for a no deal brexit
I don't hope for a no deal Brexit.
It's just I'm OK with a no deal Brexit over a bad deal. Good deal > No Deal > Bad Deal.
I'm also confident that if we are prepared to risk a no deal Brexit then we can get a good deal.
If there was a Labour leader who wasn't a Communist, then the Tories would be dead. TBH the Tories should be dead, even with a Communist Leader of the opposition.
And a 5% conservative lead in yesterdays poll and an electoral calculus of a majority of 10
Labour may find their opposition to the deal to get a GE will have a negative effect for them
I suspect with UKIP on 6% and very few candidates, there would be a bit of an uptick on that Tory majority....
As I recall the outcome of the GE was the Tories limped over the line and retained the premiership, however imperfectly - that sounds like exactly the outcome May hopes for now as well.
If there was a Labour leader who wasn't a Communist, then the Tories would be dead. TBH the Tories should be dead, even with a Communist Leader of the opposition.
And a 5% conservative lead in yesterdays poll and an electoral calculus of a majority of 10
Labour may find their opposition to the deal to get a GE will have a negative effect for them
Then again, using Electoral Calculus for that close a margin is fraught. On the pre-election Electoral Calculus (using the vote shares per constituency from 2015), the vote shares actually achieved give a Conservative majority of 4.
It's just I'm OK with a no deal Brexit over a bad deal. Good deal > No Deal > Bad Deal.
I'm also confident that if we are prepared to risk a no deal Brexit then we can get a good deal.
Stage one of getting a good deal is not threatening no deal, but putting in the work it takes to articulate what kind of good deal you want. Just making unworkable demands is never going to work no matter how much self-harm you threaten.
Never underestimate the paranoia of tyrannical regimes.
"British student who took photo from plane faces Egypt spying trial Muhammed Fathi Abulkasem, 19, from Manchester accused of photographing military helicopter"
It's just I'm OK with a no deal Brexit over a bad deal. Good deal > No Deal > Bad Deal.
I'm also confident that if we are prepared to risk a no deal Brexit then we can get a good deal.
Stage one of getting a good deal is not threatening no deal, but putting in the work it takes to articulate what kind of good deal you want. Just making unworkable demands is never going to work no matter how much self-harm you threaten.
My assumption thus far has been that if it is truly a bad deal, it will be via a treaty we can unilaterally withdraw from.
Thus Deal >Turns out it's a bad deal > Withdraw, no deal
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Correction: this useful chart from the Commons shows what happens at that point. Essentially the Government has 3 weeks to make a statement on what to do next (possibly guided by motions carried in the interim by Parliament, since if they ignore such motions they risk VONC). MPs then vote whether to accept or reject the course of action proposed.
The Government could, for example, resubmit the same deal, or a tweaked deal, or announce a referendum. I'm not clear whether the final statement can be amended, though - does anyone know?
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Deltapoll has the Deal ahead of No Deal and beating Remain head to head
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
On today's yougov she could call a general election with her Deal as a manifesto commitment
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Correction: this useful chart from the Commons shows what happens at that point. Essentially the Government has 3 weeks to make a statement on what to do next (possibly guided by motions carried in the interim by Parliament, since if they ignore such motions they risk VONC). MPs then vote whether to accept or reject the course of action proposed.
The Government could, for example, resubmit the same deal, or a tweaked deal, or announce a referendum. I'm not clear whether the final statement can be amended, though - does anyone know?
Never underestimate the paranoia of tyrannical regimes.
"British student who took photo from plane faces Egypt spying trial Muhammed Fathi Abulkasem, 19, from Manchester accused of photographing military helicopter"
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
On today's yougov she could call a general election with her Deal as a manifesto commitment
And she does that when 1/3 of the parliamentary party would not wish to stand under that manifesto how?
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
On today's yougov she could call a general election with her Deal as a manifesto commitment
And she does that when 1/3 of the parliamentary party would not wish to stand under that manifesto how?
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
On today's yougov she could call a general election with her Deal as a manifesto commitment
And she does that when 1/3 of the parliamentary party would not wish to stand under that manifesto how?
That is so funny and succient
If I am known for nothing else, it is succinctness.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Correction: this useful chart from the Commons shows what happens at that point. Essentially the Government has 3 weeks to make a statement on what to do next (possibly guided by motions carried in the interim by Parliament, since if they ignore such motions they risk VONC). MPs then vote whether to accept or reject the course of action proposed.
The Government could, for example, resubmit the same deal, or a tweaked deal, or announce a referendum. I'm not clear whether the final statement can be amended, though - does anyone know?
The government can not just announce a referendum. There has top be a statute passed in parliament. How would it get a majority?
... they took their chance to kick the powers that be out of their complacency. The breaking of that complacency will imo be the major long term gain from the EUref.
*shrugs*
What use is that to everyone? It will not keep you warm, clothed, fed or healthy. And what is "Long Term"? Does that mean we have to wait for my Grandkids to benefit? Or their kids?
Which flavour of Brexit has stolen your clothes, turned off your heating, starved you and made you poorly? ...
That would be what people call "No Deal Brexit" which is my MPs will not allow it to happen
It is not as easy for them to not allow it as they are pretending. I think they can find a way, but they are ignoring that they signed an exit into law and it will take more work than just saying they won't allow it to prevent it.
It's very easy. They just need to vote for the deal.
Yes. But they don;t actually dislike no deal as much as they say. Actions speak louder than words.
Possibly. So far we've had lots of words but the actions of MPs won't be known until we see the results of the vote (or possibly 2nd vote, if there is one). At present I'd put it at about 10% chance of the deal (or a second version of it with very minor cosmetic changes/'clarifications') being approved
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I don't see anyone else backing my theory that the sequence will be deal fails, talks resume, backstop gets replaced with a face-saving acceptable alternative. It works with the Parliamentary maths and it also works with the Irish wanting to avoid a hard border better than no deal does.
I believe you're no fan of the backstop. What odds would you put on that happening? I still think its more likely than other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
Just for the record, and so you don't feel lonely, I think your theory about the sequence of events may well turn out to be correct.
It's just I'm OK with a no deal Brexit over a bad deal. Good deal > No Deal > Bad Deal.
I'm also confident that if we are prepared to risk a no deal Brexit then we can get a good deal.
Stage one of getting a good deal is not threatening no deal, but putting in the work it takes to articulate what kind of good deal you want. Just making unworkable demands is never going to work no matter how much self-harm you threaten.
Replace the Irish backstop with a good faith commitment from both parties to work to avoid a hard border. Job done.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
That would be true if there was one shot at this and that was the end of the matter. Its not.
For those of us who want to renegotiate then no amendment offers that. Only the defeat of this deal forcing the negotiators back to the table does. You can't vote on something that's not on offer, only approve or decline what is.
Correction - only the defeat of the deal might force the negotiators back to the table.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
It’s because of the size of the domestic market opportunity.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
That would be true if there was one shot at this and that was the end of the matter. Its not.
For those of us who want to renegotiate then no amendment offers that. Only the defeat of this deal forcing the negotiators back to the table does. You can't vote on something that's not on offer, only approve or decline what is.
Correction - only the defeat of the deal might force the negotiators back to the table.
Which parties negotiators actually want no deal?
Things happen that people don't want to happen all the time. I hope you are right that they will force them back to the table, but it is a risk they won't, for political reasons just as our political realities constrain us. We cannot pretend it is a certainty.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
Worth remembering that's it is not our savings that the City is recycling - it's mostly European ones.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
Worth remembering that's it is not our savings that the City is recycling - it's mostly European ones.
Is it? I thought it was global savings that were involved.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
I have always thought that they would use their UK subsidiaries to do the deal in London that the Euro HQ wanted.
If there was a Labour leader who wasn't a Communist, then the Tories would be dead. TBH the Tories should be dead, even with a Communist Leader of the opposition.
And a 5% conservative lead in yesterdays poll and an electoral calculus of a majority of 10
Labour may find their opposition to the deal to get a GE will have a negative effect for them
Then again, using Electoral Calculus for that close a margin is fraught. On the pre-election Electoral Calculus (using the vote shares per constituency from 2015), the vote shares actually achieved give a Conservative majority of 4.
Also most Labour MPs in marginal seats will be likely to enjoy a first term incumbency boost.
Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.
Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?
Interesting how much of 'pretty' France is a poverty stricken shithole:
' The mutual attraction between Alet and its British residents is rooted in geography. The village is located in Aude, the second-poorest area in mainland France. It has no industry.
Its main city, Carcassonne, has half the population of Oldham in the north-west of England and five times its unemployment rate (24% to Oldham's 4.5%). '
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Correction: this useful chart from the Commons shows what happens at that point. Essentially the Government has 3 weeks to make a statement on what to do next (possibly guided by motions carried in the interim by Parliament, since if they ignore such motions they risk VONC). MPs then vote whether to accept or reject the course of action proposed.
The Government could, for example, resubmit the same deal, or a tweaked deal, or announce a referendum. I'm not clear whether the final statement can be amended, though - does anyone know?
The government can not just announce a referendum. There has top be a statute passed in parliament. How would it get a majority?
It can announce legislation for it if it is a cross party agreement
Interesting how much of 'pretty' France is a poverty stricken shithole:
' The mutual attraction between Alet and its British residents is rooted in geography. The village is located in Aude, the second-poorest area in mainland France. It has no industry.
Its main city, Carcassonne, has half the population of Oldham in the north-west of England and five times its unemployment rate (24% to Oldham's 4.5%). '
I remember as a child in the late 80s going on a camping holiday across Europe and stopping at a cafe in France without a toilet. They literally had a hole in the floor instead and that was apparently then normal in the poorer parts of France.
Interesting how much of 'pretty' France is a poverty stricken shithole:
' The mutual attraction between Alet and its British residents is rooted in geography. The village is located in Aude, the second-poorest area in mainland France. It has no industry.
Its main city, Carcassonne, has half the population of Oldham in the north-west of England and five times its unemployment rate (24% to Oldham's 4.5%). '
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
Just been discussing this with Mrs D, an ardent remainer. She seems to have fallen for the general anti-May narrative, but I persuaded her that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if May gets it through. First of all, whatever one thinks of May, she is actually doing something. Most MPs are either fantasists or cop-out merchants, kicking the Brexit can down the road. Secondly, the May deal gives us time to navigate as a country towards an outcome we can be happy with. Hopefully, in our view, something Switzerland/Norway-like, but in any event not some WTO hell.
All this is predicated on my firm belief that there is not going to be a 2nd referendum.
Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.
Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?
The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.
In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
Just been discussing this with Mrs D, an ardent remainer. She seems to have fallen for the general anti-May narrative, but I persuaded her that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if May gets it through. First of all, whatever one thinks of May, she is actually doing something. Most MPs are either fantasists or cop-out merchants, kicking the Brexit can down the road. Secondly, the May deal gives us time to navigate as a country towards an outcome we can be happy with. Hopefully, in our view, something Switzerland/Norway-like, but in any event not some WTO hell.
All this is predicated on my firm belief that there is not going to be a 2nd referendum.
I honestly cant see a second referendum
In a slightly amusing related comment
Was in a Brexit planning meeting Wednesday - most of us focusing on the task at hand - 2 people winging about Brexit - one Australian and 1 Polish.
< Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
I suspect financial services will be clobbered under any Brexit scenario, because of regulation and not market access. The EU will discourage activity it doesn't have direct control over to avoid disrupting its systems. Meanwhile UK authorities won't accept rules made by others if they are on the hook for any liability. So activity will move from the smaller regulatory area to the bigger one. There's a reason why New York is a much more important financial centre than Toronto.
Bad for me :-(
Of course instead of banks moving to the continent, continental companies in need of funds might move their Treasuries to the UK.
Worth remembering that's it is not our savings that the City is recycling - it's mostly European ones.
Is it? I thought it was global savings that were involved.
I exaggerate, but London's assets are probably 25% US, 30% UK, 35% other Europe (including lots of Switzerland, Russia and Norway).
Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.
Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?
The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.
In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.
Speculation is the lifeblood of this site but many do not seem to understand the meaningful vote and it's importance.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Yes, but do you really think that Theresa May will just shrug and say "OK, no deal or is then" and run out the clock until April if she loses the vote?
On today's yougov she could call a general election with her Deal as a manifesto commitment
And she does that when 1/3 of the parliamentary party would not wish to stand under that manifesto how?
You may get some personal manifestos but if the voters endorse her party with the Deal in her manifesto then it would be very difficult to vote it down in the new Parliament, wavering Labour MPs too would likely abstain rather than vote against a manifesto commitment endorsed by the voters
Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.
Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?
The process is laid down in Nick chart. TM has a max of 21 days to return to parliament with a response duing which time the government cannot be vnoc as long as it complies with the speakers requests
During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.
In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
I assume that the 21 days refers to 'sitting days' and would exclude the Xmas Recess period.
Good question but I think this is why the government has warned mps that their xmas recess could be seriously curtailed
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
On the 'meaningful vote', this is a curious game of three-way chicken. For it to fail, those who above all want to avoid the disaster of a crash-out, and/or would prefer Remain, have to ally themselves with those who prefer the disaster of a crash-out, and who have been working for decades for us to Leave. At the moment a lot of MPs say they subscribe to that alliance, but it's a logical nonsense unless both sides are simply miscalculating badly. Maybe they are.
I like "three way chicken". Lots of people are missing this. The "alliance" of people who oppose the Deal is not an alliance at all, and both Hard Brexiteers and Remainers are gambling all on getting what they want by ignoring the real chance of a nightmare outcome. Defeating what appears to be the only Deal available in the time leads inexorably to crash out or Remain, which are highly suboptimal outcomes for nearly half the country.
The default option is WTO deal but even if this is blocked somehow and we remain, Brexiteers still have the option to have another go in the near future. Remainers will find it hard to go back into the EU once we are out.
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
Just been discussing this with Mrs D, an ardent remainer. She seems to have fallen for the general anti-May narrative, but I persuaded her that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if May gets it through. First of all, whatever one thinks of May, she is actually doing something. Most MPs are either fantasists or cop-out merchants, kicking the Brexit can down the road. Secondly, the May deal gives us time to navigate as a country towards an outcome we can be happy with. Hopefully, in our view, something Switzerland/Norway-like, but in any event not some WTO hell.
All this is predicated on my firm belief that there is not going to be a 2nd referendum.
I honestly cant see a second referendum
In a slightly amusing related comment
Was in a Brexit planning meeting Wednesday - most of us focusing on the task at hand - 2 people winging about Brexit - one Australian and 1 Polish.
What do you put the chances of the deal being ratified after a significant change?
I other touted options like no deal since I don't think the Irish genuinely want to go into the abyss.
I think there is no chance of a significant change. If there was a better solution, why wouldn't the two sides have found it already? I think it is possible that there could be some kind of further fudge on the backstop, sufficient to provide cover for some MPs to change their minds, but I don't expect it to be anything more than that.
I think they wouldn't have found it already because the EU both arrogantly and accurately thought they didn't need to bend. You wrote about MPs playing chicken but the Irish have been playing a game of chicken too - threatening a hard border to guarantee no hard border. They knew May wasn't prepared for no deal so knew she would back down.
If May goes and someone who is prepared to go for no deal takes over then the game changes. The Irish can choose to go through with no deal and implement that hard border (or not) - or they can blink themselves.
Is that not logical?
That assumes No Deal is a sustainable end state for the UK. The EU presumably believes not. I don't think so either. Leavers need Brexit to be at least tolerable, even if it's never going to be an actual success.
It is a sustainable end state. Its a suboptimal one, but its sustainable.
The EU presumably believed we wouldn't vote for Brexit. We did. The EU presumably believed we wouldn't turn down their deal. We might.
Cameron and May both tried to negotiate with the EU and both made the fatal flaw of being obviously unprepared to walk away. There's enough time left for just one more attempt at negotiations, it needs to be led by someone who is completely prepared to walk away. Call their bluff. Deal or no deal.
Points to bear in mind:
- The EU wants the stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement. It will push for that every opportunity and as a condition for agreeing anything at all in the future. It won't say, OK, no deal let's move on. - The EU only needs to make it more attractive for us to sign the deal than not sign it. - The original referendum was won on a tiny majority on a promise of no cost and there is now probably a majority against. The public appetite for a stand off may not be that great.
But it does mean accepting LESS say over what happens to us when taking control was the only point of Brexit.
Comments
10 days to one of the most epic days in British politics
Julian the Apostate holds the record for most flawlessly won civil war in history. His rival, Constantius II, died of an illness, naming Julian as his successor before he passed away.
Pestilence can do the job just as well as age.
On the UK/EU situation, if we leave it's possible the EU will accelerate integration to diminish the chance of anyone else following, but that would also raise the bar for UK re-entry.
Sure the EU and Irish having pushed too far and been rebuffed could decide to stick to their guns. They could stare into the abyss and think "yes let's jump into that". Or they could blink. Its possible.
If the government falls in a fortnight’s time over the deal not being ratified, then the new PM (likely to be Conservative and more of a Leaver than the incumbent) will have as their first task in office to go back to the EU and tell them to get back around the table and renegotiate to avoid no-deal.
The question then becomes how close to the line will the EU take the rising probability of no-deal, before they realise that both sides screwed up the initial negotiations and everyone needs to act quickly and co-operatively to walk away from the cliff edge.
Bad for me :-(
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/house/house-magazine/100228/rory-stewart-says-he-no
But then, a bland middle-of-the-road Labour leader would've actually campaigned to Remain and that would've most likely made the critical difference.
Labour may find their opposition to the deal to get a GE will have a negative effect for them
"they will on Friday feel more obliged to reject and oust her pronto, if as expected they throw out her deal - because how could they support a PM so fatalistic and negative about finding a negotiated backstop-free Brexit?"
https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/has-prime-minister-just-signed-her-own-warrant-of-execution/
But that is ERG dna
And no WTO only happens if the HOC vote for it over TM deal at the end of the meaningful vote
So Brexiteers should be less concerned about the outcome of defeating the May deal than Remainers.
As the meaningful vote takes place after all the amendments then mps will know where they stand on this vote at the end of the night. Assuming all amendments fall one by one, the final vote the HOC will take will be TM deal or no deal, as all other options have fallen.
In that case TM deal must be all but certain of passing
If I am correct I believe this is the view of the government whips
I am open to correction by those familar with the process
It also adds in a whole new tier of voting for the mps to consider and work out how they may prevail. A game of super chess with huge stakes
Anyway, I must be off.
https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1068486895200624641
Who would the deal be made with?
For those of us who want to renegotiate then no amendment offers that. Only the defeat of this deal forcing the negotiators back to the table does. You can't vote on something that's not on offer, only approve or decline what is.
I understood WTO rules were... Well, a backstop!
The EU presumably believed we wouldn't vote for Brexit. We did.
The EU presumably believed we wouldn't turn down their deal. We might.
Cameron and May both tried to negotiate with the EU and both made the fatal flaw of being obviously unprepared to walk away. There's enough time left for just one more attempt at negotiations, it needs to be led by someone who is completely prepared to walk away. Call their bluff. Deal or no deal.
And equally as that phrase, no brexit is better than a bad brexit. And since many people say they want a better deal, no no deal, then if they cannot get a better deal some of them will think no brexit is better.
It's just I'm OK with a no deal Brexit over a bad deal. Good deal > No Deal > Bad Deal.
I'm also confident that if we are prepared to risk a no deal Brexit then we can get a good deal.
On the pre-election Electoral Calculus (using the vote shares per constituency from 2015), the vote shares actually achieved give a Conservative majority of 4.
"British student who took photo from plane faces Egypt spying trial
Muhammed Fathi Abulkasem, 19, from Manchester accused of photographing military helicopter"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/30/british-student-who-took-photo-from-plane-faces-egypt-spying-trial
Thus Deal >Turns out it's a bad deal > Withdraw, no deal
Remain isn't an option. We voted.
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1068478176987414528
The Government could, for example, resubmit the same deal, or a tweaked deal, or announce a referendum. I'm not clear whether the final statement can be amended, though - does anyone know?
Big_G can I ask you a question? If May's deal is rejected and May says "OK we are exiting without a deal then" I would want to see her ousted and replaced by a new leader who instead seeks to renegotiate the deal without a backstop, like Peston describes here.
Would you support May or join me in wanting her replaced in that scenario?
' The mutual attraction between Alet and its British residents is rooted in geography. The village is located in Aude, the second-poorest area in mainland France. It has no industry.
Its main city, Carcassonne, has half the population of Oldham in the north-west of England and five times its unemployment rate (24% to Oldham's 4.5%). '
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46329850
All this is predicated on my firm belief that there is not going to be a 2nd referendum.
During that period the cabinet and party leaders will no doubt have intensive meetings to decide on the next process which could be return to EU to seek better terms, resubmit the deal, propose a second referendum or some other course of action.
In practice I expect it to be only a few days before TM makes her intentions known and until then everyone will need patience
In a slightly amusing related comment
Was in a Brexit planning meeting Wednesday - most of us focusing on the task at hand - 2 people winging about Brexit - one Australian and 1 Polish.
- The EU wants the stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement. It will push for that every opportunity and as a condition for agreeing anything at all in the future. It won't say, OK, no deal let's move on.
- The EU only needs to make it more attractive for us to sign the deal than not sign it.
- The original referendum was won on a tiny majority on a promise of no cost and there is now probably a majority against. The public appetite for a stand off may not be that great.
But it does mean accepting LESS say over what happens to us when taking control was the only point of Brexit.