Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The precedent seems limited to me. How many governments are going to lose votes like this? How many governments are going to try to keep MPs uninformed on a vote like Brexit?
There is no way now that a future government will not have to publish legal advvice. This precedent is forever.
Surely bollox. The Government will only have to publish advice if the HoC passes motion to that effect. Normally a government would expect to defeat such motions.
Sorry but how could a government refuse, what are they going to say? Our advice is much more secret than the brexit advice so you are not allowed to see it. Andre Leadsom made this point yesterday.
It’s a basic constitutional point: you can’t govern in whichever way you want if you don’t have a majority in the house. If you can command the confidence of the house you can more or less do what you want; if you can’t then in some respects Parliament is directing the executive rather than the other way round.
There may be a reasonable argument that yesterday’s defeats would have triggered an election before the FTPA codified the nature of confidence votes. Another thing to blame Cameron for...
YouGov still showing 2 % point Con lead over Labour, be interesting to see how that changes in next few weeks after yesterday's grandstanding. Even after last week's foul ups Corbyn still can't break out of his comfort zone.
It must be gut-wrenching to watch a party of decent racists be taken over by unsavoury racists, the sort of people you wouldn’t want to share a pint and some reminiscences about golliwogs with. Ukip has gone from a party for second-hand Jag drivers who even worked with a coloured lad once to the home of statist schemies eager that the ‘rapefugees’ not eat into their share of the benefits pot. Batten may yet be vindicated. Ukip is doing better in the polls of late and may be able to lay claim to ‘Brexit betrayed’ voters and those motivated by right-wing identity politics. Flirting with fascism is no longer grounds for electoral expulsion. The Labour Party broke the cordon sanitaire around anti-Semitism and making common cause with extremists and paid no price for it. The acceptance of radical prejudice in the mainstream has created breathing space for the fringes to expand into more taboo territory. Ukip’s association with the extra-parliamentary right might discomfit Nigel Farage but it might also give them a new life as a nationalist-culturist party along the lines of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally or Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party.
Since the foregoing has been uncharitable to Farage, let’s end with one observation in his favour. Whatever his strategic calculations, when the party he loves became too extreme for him, he withdrew his name and his coin. He did not vainly present himself as a saviour battling to rescue its ‘soul’ and nor did he make us endure snot-and-sniffle recollections of what his old dad would have made of it all. He did the only logical thing you can do when an organisation you are a member of democratically and overwhelmingly opts for extremism: he refused to go along with it. Nothing in the conduct of his resignation elevates him from the bar room rabble-rouser that he is but he has underscored the moral cowardice of Labour members and backbenchers. When his party went after Muslims, Farage walked away. When their party went after Jews, Labour MPs went along with it.
I said on Saturday I’d expect (No Deal) Leave to win again.
I’m playing the long game.
We Leave without a deal and we Rejoin within a decade.
Leavers cannot say they weren’t denied democracy and the rest of us can point and laugh at them when things go mammary glands up.
No Deal will destroy them the way the 1939/1940 destroyed the appeasers.
No deal followed by rejoin is the only viable path. May's deal is dead. Norway is balls that pleases almost nobody. Nobody can remember what the fuck Chequers was even about. Remain without the cleansing flames of pas d'entente will cause leavers to have even more sand in their manginas.
There won't be a "no deal".
As far as leaving and rejoining is concerned, I think people should be (made) aware that it wouldn't be possible to rejoin on the same membership terms we have now. For example, it's very difficult for a new member to be accepted without joining the Eurozone. So, although there will probably be a majority soon after leaving for rejoining, rejoining would actually mean a majority of the public would be less happy about being a member. (And thus the merry-go-round will continue.)
The obvious conclusion from this is that we shouldn't be leaving in the first place. Ever since the referendum I've said that parliament should be honest about this and keep us in the EU despite the vote. I still think today that it's what our MPs should do. They aren't brave enough, of course.
That depends. The UK and EU could very quickly conclude an Accession Treaty based on the status quo ante, if there was willingness to do so on both sides, because it would mean not needing to amend the Treaties that govern the EU. Ratification may take a little longer but under the stresses of a No Deal Brexit, minds could be focussed.
This all depends on the various actors being sensible and displaying good will, both of which are optimistic assumptions.
Hmm. If Liddington's a caretaker, that's fine. Be miffed if he's permanent Con leader, though.
Janitor rather, and not fine unless you have a stake on it.
If May walks away (and she may need to as things will need to be fixed in a hurry) it needs to be someone who isn't likely to be part of the leadership election that kicks off at about the same time. Lidington is the most plausible candidate (and just about the only one) and the odds of May having to leave next Tuesday / Wednesday are surely less than the 100-1 betfred are offering.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
I've seen precious little thinking from remainers about how they'd win a referendum. They've spent the last two years whinging, shouting and demanding a second referendum, but have done f-all to sell he EU to the public - and that's what they need to be doing.
They've utterly wasted two years.
At least the Europhobes weren't so utterly lazy until after they won.
Offering the voters a choice between Remain, or accepting a deal that Parliament has refused to pass, would probably ensure that enough Leave voters stayed at home.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Still a while yet before you start to take responsibility for your own failings then. If Leavers had sought to reach out to open-minded Remainers, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. But they spent the period after the referendum seeking to grind their opponents into the dust instead. Big mistake.
Seconded.
Yep. too much time spent trying to crush the saboteurs, who in reality were a tiny minority.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
It must be gut-wrenching to watch a party of decent racists be taken over by unsavoury racists, the sort of people you wouldn’t want to share a pint and some reminiscences about golliwogs with. Ukip has gone from a party for second-hand Jag drivers who even worked with a coloured lad once to the home of statist schemies eager that the ‘rapefugees’ not eat into their share of the benefits pot. Batten may yet be vindicated. Ukip is doing better in the polls of late and may be able to lay claim to ‘Brexit betrayed’ voters and those motivated by right-wing identity politics. Flirting with fascism is no longer grounds for electoral expulsion. The Labour Party broke the cordon sanitaire around anti-Semitism and making common cause with extremists and paid no price for it. The acceptance of radical prejudice in the mainstream has created breathing space for the fringes to expand into more taboo territory. Ukip’s association with the extra-parliamentary right might discomfit Nigel Farage but it might also give them a new life as a nationalist-culturist party along the lines of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally or Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party.
Since the foregoing has been uncharitable to Farage, let’s end with one observation in his favour. Whatever his strategic calculations, when the party he loves became too extreme for him, he withdrew his name and his coin. He did not vainly present himself as a saviour battling to rescue its ‘soul’ and nor did he make us endure snot-and-sniffle recollections of what his old dad would have made of it all. He did the only logical thing you can do when an organisation you are a member of democratically and overwhelmingly opts for extremism: he refused to go along with it. Nothing in the conduct of his resignation elevates him from the bar room rabble-rouser that he is but he has underscored the moral cowardice of Labour members and backbenchers. When his party went after Muslims, Farage walked away. When their party went after Jews, Labour MPs went along with it.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I think it was always going to be hard to get the legislation through a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported Remain.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
But no-deal is the default outcome is the WA is voted down. How does making it amendable change that?
I think the way it works is that the government has to return to parliament to say what it’s going to do next. As a result of the Grieve amendment to the standing orders, the motion to accept that statement becomes amendable, so the house would either amend it to order the government to act in a certain way, or perhaps to instruct the government to lay certain legislation (which could itself then be amended). It’s pretty uncharted territory but based on yesterday’s event, if the PM refuses to comply she/he could then be found in contempt.
I don’t know what happens if a PM is found in contempt, but the Commons still refuses to NC the government.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I think it was always going to be hard to get the legislation through a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported Remain.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
The major problem comes down to Vote Leave promising us all the benefits of the EU without any of the costs.
That said Mrs May's deal achieved most of the end goals with a bit of compromise here and there.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I think it was always going to be hard to get the legislation through a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported Remain.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
The major problem comes down to Vote Leave promising us all the benefits of the EU without any of the costs no.
That said Mrs May's deal achieved most of the end goals with a bit of compromise here and there.
The ERG is beyond stupid. They will give Leavers 100% of nothing.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I think it was always going to be hard to get the legislation through a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported Remain.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
The major problem comes down to Vote Leave promising us all the benefits of the EU without any of the costs no.
That said Mrs May's deal achieved most of the end goals with a bit of compromise here and there.
The ERG is beyond stupid.
You don't have any sympathy for the view that the backstop is unacceptable?
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Bollocks, David Davis said No Deal was Project Fear, that the EU needed us more than we needed them, ergo No Deal planning wasn't required.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
I don't think you'd have welcomed that outcome. The Referendum promise helped that Conservatives win the 2015 election. Without it, UKIP would have won places like Thurrock, Boston, Thanet South from the Tories.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I think it was always going to be hard to get the legislation through a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported Remain.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
The major problem comes down to Vote Leave promising us all the benefits of the EU without any of the costs no.
That said Mrs May's deal achieved most of the end goals with a bit of compromise here and there.
The ERG is beyond stupid.
You don't have any sympathy for the view that the backstop is unacceptable?
I have sympathy, but not enough sympathy to run the risk of Remain.
Does Theresa May have any interests outside of politics? All I can find is that she enjoys following cricket, looking at cookbooks (sic), and watching a US police series on TV. She needs to do something...
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I think it was always going to be hard to get the legislation through a Parliament which overwhelmingly supported Remain.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
The major problem comes down to Vote Leave promising us all the benefits of the EU without any of the costs no.
That said Mrs May's deal achieved most of the end goals with a bit of compromise here and there.
The ERG is beyond stupid.
You don't have any sympathy for the view that the backstop is unacceptable?
Leaving without the backstop = No deal = Hard border in Ireland = Ripping up the Good Friday agreement.
This has been the conundrum for the last 2 years. May just wasn't strong enough to admit that was the case until the last couple of weeks.
That's the real problem here, the government has kicked the can down the road for as long as possible on this point, until they had to admit the facts.
Does Theresa May have any interests outside of politics? All I can find is that she enjoys following cricket, looking at cookbooks (sic), and watching a US police series on TV. She needs to do something...
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Are you sure? Granted, many Leavers were in favour of no-deal planning in general, but most specifics (especially those that would cost money or otherwise be unpopular, like concreting Kent) were immediately described as unnecessary, project fear, hysteria and so on. It’s been a consistent strategy to prevent the government taking unpopular but necessary steps which might further undermine public support for Brexit.
But no-deal is the default outcome is the WA is voted down. How does making it amendable change that?
I think the way it works is that the government has to return to parliament to say what it’s going to do next. As a result of the Grieve amendment to the standing orders, the motion to accept that statement becomes amendable, so the house would either amend it to order the government to act in a certain way, or perhaps to instruct the government to lay certain legislation (which could itself then be amended). It’s pretty uncharted territory but based on yesterday’s event, if the PM refuses to comply she/he could then be found in contempt.
I don’t know what happens if a PM is found in contempt, but the Commons still refuses to NC the government.
Wouldn't the government be obliged to tell the EU that the WA has not been accepted, so depending on the EU's willingness to resume negotiations there would be either a managed no-deal exit or resumption of discussions with the March 29th deadline pushed into the future. In the latter case there would have to be reconsideration of the backstop.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Bollocks, David Davis said No Deal was Project Fear, that the EU needed us more than we needed them, ergo No Deal planning wasn't required.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
Do you have a source for him saying no deal planning wasn't required please?
But no-deal is the default outcome is the WA is voted down. How does making it amendable change that?
I think the way it works is that the government has to return to parliament to say what it’s going to do next. As a result of the Grieve amendment to the standing orders, the motion to accept that statement becomes amendable, so the house would either amend it to order the government to act in a certain way, or perhaps to instruct the government to lay certain legislation (which could itself then be amended). It’s pretty uncharted territory but based on yesterday’s event, if the PM refuses to comply she/he could then be found in contempt.
I don’t know what happens if a PM is found in contempt, but the Commons still refuses to NC the government.
Wouldn't the government be obliged to tell the EU that the WA has not been accepted, so depending on the EU's willingness to resume negotiations there would be either a managed no-deal exit or resumption of discussions with the March 29th deadline pushed into the future. In the latter case there would have to be reconsideration of the backstop.
Not unless instructed to by Parliament, I don’t think. In practice the government can seek to reopen negotiations, or can unilaterally propose a different approach which include the two options you mentioned above.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
But no-deal is the default outcome is the WA is voted down. How does making it amendable change that?
I think the way it works is that the government has to return to parliament to say what it’s going to do next. As a result of the Grieve amendment to the standing orders, the motion to accept that statement becomes amendable, so the house would either amend it to order the government to act in a certain way, or perhaps to instruct the government to lay certain legislation (which could itself then be amended). It’s pretty uncharted territory but based on yesterday’s event, if the PM refuses to comply she/he could then be found in contempt.
I don’t know what happens if a PM is found in contempt, but the Commons still refuses to NC the government.
Wouldn't the government be obliged to tell the EU that the WA has not been accepted, so depending on the EU's willingness to resume negotiations there would be either a managed no-deal exit or resumption of discussions with the March 29th deadline pushed into the future. In the latter case there would have to be reconsideration of the backstop.
If both Corbyn and May rock up to Brussels singing off the same hymn sheet about Brexit (They aren't actually very far apart) then the EU might modify the agreement (Exclude the FoM changes; create the backstop as an endstate with SM for the whole of the UK & no doubt more fees attached... )
BUT
France, Netherlands, Denmark might object over fishing. I don't think Ireland would. Spain might reraise Gibraltar.
It's not as simple, even if the commons agrees on the path forward, as some think might it is to pivot to ultra-soft Brexit.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Bollocks, David Davis said No Deal was Project Fear, that the EU needed us more than we needed them, ergo No Deal planning wasn't required.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
Do you have a source for him saying no deal planning wasn't required please?
It was the clear inference from his comments.
“Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit, but they will be fully negotiated.”
David Davis 14 July 2016
“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
David Davis 15 November 2016
I mean he thought all our deals would just roll over
I don't think you'd have welcomed that outcome. The Referendum promise helped that Conservatives win the 2015 election. Without it, UKIP would have won places like Thurrock, Boston, Thanet South from the Tories.
At the time, I would not.
But with the luxury of hindsight and the wisdom of recent experience, I take the view that the integrity of the Conservative Party is of less concern than isolating the headbangers.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
For all the drama (which I love*) the situation is simple. In 2016 we voted to leave the EU under the best exit deal that the government could manage to negotiate. This it has now done. Parliament must therefore ratify. And it will. If not next week then in Q1 next year after some tweaks.
* Thank goodness TM's GE 2017 gamble backfired. If she had won a big majority rather than lost the small one she had we would have been denied all of this.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Bollocks, David Davis said No Deal was Project Fear, that the EU needed us more than we needed them, ergo No Deal planning wasn't required.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
Do you have a source for him saying no deal planning wasn't required please?
It was the clear inference from his comments.
“Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit, but they will be fully negotiated.”
David Davis 14 July 2016
“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
David Davis 15 November 2016
I mean he thought all our deals would just roll over
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
That's not certain. The published advice is the final version. Whether there was a previous version (and what changed between the two) is an interesting question but likely not one we will ever find the answer to.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Bollocks, David Davis said No Deal was Project Fear, that the EU needed us more than we needed them, ergo No Deal planning wasn't required.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
Do you have a source for him saying no deal planning wasn't required please?
It was the clear inference from his comments.
“Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit, but they will be fully negotiated.”
David Davis 14 July 2016
“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
David Davis 15 November 2016
I mean he thought all our deals would just roll over
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Honour the result? Why? It was obvious from day 1 that Leaving was a worse outcome than Remaining. How exactly am I (or other Remainers) supposed to get enthusiastic about that?
If any group has been begging for punishment beatings and salting the Earth it is the more extreme Leavers. As an extreme Remainer I view Brexit as a punishment beating.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
When did she "beg the EU to give us a punishment beating"? You may feel she allowed it but beg? Hardly.
When she said she couldn't walk away with a deal and so begged for whatever deal they would deign to give us.
But wasn’t the reason she couldn’t walk away without a deal because of the lack of no deal planning, which she couldn’t undertake because the leave contingent insisted it was just more Project Fear?
No that is categorically untrue. Leavers advised her to do no deal preparations. It was remainers like Hammond who kiboshed it.
Bollocks, David Davis said No Deal was Project Fear, that the EU needed us more than we needed them, ergo No Deal planning wasn't required.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
Do you have a source for him saying no deal planning wasn't required please?
It was the clear inference from his comments.
“Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit, but they will be fully negotiated.”
David Davis 14 July 2016
“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
David Davis 15 November 2016
I mean he thought all our deals would just roll over
It's been said before but it's worth reiterating that the Tories won't call a 2nd ref. A referendum would lead to a change of leader as May would lose a confidence vote immediately. The only way a referendum happens IMO is after a Labour general election victory. In those circumstances Leave would have to contest the referendum (as a change of government would justify a fresh look at Brexit), rather than just boycott it and make it illegitimate.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
I suppose informal or verbal advice might have been given, which would only be recorded in Cabinet briefing notes or subsequent minutes
No immediate smoking gun from the legal advice but para 26 isn’t looking good for attempts to get the DUP back on board - the fact that the Cabinet was advised that the review mechanism could at least in theory be used by the E.U. against the U.K.’s will to end the U.K. participation in the customs territory and create an ‘irish Sea border’ looks problematic.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
Another Pandora's box opened. This precedent could get very interesting if/when we need to head to war next.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
I had assumed that the PM received legal advice all the way through this process. I expected no less. So where is it? One document less than a month old? That is it?
This is reminiscent of the Brexit impact assessments - 57 of them - that, when publication was demanded, turned out not to exist.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
You are literally channelling Hitler with this stab in the back myth.
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
I don't think there's any call to resort to race.
Benedict Arnold seems a better comparison.
I believe there's more than one (serious historical) view about Benedict Arnold.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
It’s certainly going to make it harder for minority governments to conceal the facts they considered in reaching their decisions. I’m not convinced that is as much a problem for advisers as it is for minority governments.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
I had assumed that the PM received legal advice all the way through this process. I expected no less. So where is it? One document less than a month old? That is it?
This is reminiscent of the Brexit impact assessments - 57 of them - that, when publication was demanded, turned out not to exist.
Can anyone answer a puzzle about the now popular Norway or Norway + solution? Let us say that a WA is done in due course on the basis that we remain as if in EU until the end of the transition period, after which we continue in the single market and CU, either as members of EFTA or effectively shadowing its terms. That's all fine, and is my personal preferred solution. BUT how could the EU agree to any of that without repeating the Irish backstop in the WA to cover circumstances in which we might want to leave that arrangement and move on to Canada + or whatever. Doesn't Norway just repeat the problem, which is that the EU does not intend us ever ever ever to be able to decide the Irish border question unilaterally? Which would end us exactly where we are now.
A referendum would lead to a change of leader as May would lose a confidence vote immediately.
Not saying you're wrong but what would be the endgame of the MPs voting to ditch her in the (secret) confidence vote? Aside from who they would replace her with, what would that person do?
I read somewhere that he wanted to leave with no deal and then 'use the transition' to negotiate what we want. Not appearing to appreciate that no deal meant no transition in which to do that negotiation. But that seems so dumb that I suspect fake news.
Big question for me with DD is, is he clueless because he was sidelined or was he sidelined because he was clueless?
I read somewhere that he wanted to leave with no deal and then 'use the transition' to negotiate what we want. Not appearing to appreciate that no deal meant no transition in which to do that negotiation. But that seems so dumb that I suspect fake news.
Big question for me with DD is, is he clueless because he was sidelined or was he sidelined because he was clueless?
Can anyone answer a puzzle about the now popular Norway or Norway + solution? Let us say that a WA is done in due course on the basis that we remain as if in EU until the end of the transition period, after which we continue in the single market and CU, either as members of EFTA or effectively shadowing its terms. That's all fine, and is my personal preferred solution. BUT how could the EU agree to any of that without repeating the Irish backstop in the WA to cover circumstances in which we might want to leave that arrangement and move on to Canada + or whatever. Doesn't Norway just repeat the problem, which is that the EU does not intend us ever ever ever to be able to decide the Irish border question unilaterally? Which would end us exactly where we are now.
I don't have an answer. Does anyone?
The Norway + CU solution solves the backstop by enshrining it into perpetuity. But the EU might well be uncomfortable with it as an endstate.
A referendum would lead to a change of leader as May would lose a confidence vote immediately.
Not saying you're wrong but what would be the endgame of the MPs voting to ditch her in the (secret) confidence vote? Aside from who they would replace her with, what would that person do?
I think her replacement would at least be more elastic when it comes to renegotiating the deal and would have the added advantage of being able to get a majority against Corbyn in a snap general election. Even though May is better than Corbyn its unlikely in a GE she'd do any better than standing still.
A referendum would lead to a change of leader as May would lose a confidence vote immediately.
Not saying you're wrong but what would be the endgame of the MPs voting to ditch her in the (secret) confidence vote? Aside from who they would replace her with, what would that person do?
If you want a hard Brexit, precisely nothing. Just run the clock down to 29th March.
I read somewhere that he wanted to leave with no deal and then 'use the transition' to negotiate what we want. Not appearing to appreciate that no deal meant no transition in which to do that negotiation. But that seems so dumb that I suspect fake news.
Big question for me with DD is, is he clueless because he was sidelined or was he sidelined because he was clueless?
No, it was genuine:
The question is how do we get there? It does not have to be like this. What we need now is leadership and the courage and confidence to deliver for the UK. We can deliver an honest and clean Brexit, leaving all the possibilities such as global free trade deals open for bright future. If we need to leave with no deal and negotiate a free trade agreement during the transition period, so be it. Let’s be clear and honest and tell the EU that’s what we are prepared to do.
Mrs May has been trying to get a result which everyone can live with. She's failed for two reasons. Firstly, she's a Remainer at heart and trusts the EU, so to her, this hodge-podge deal looks reasonable. Secondly, Parliament overall is Europhile and wants either to Remain, or in the case of Labour use it to seize power too.
Parliament voted to honour the referendum result. It had no intention of doing so therefore they are liars, but we knew that anyway. Parliament will be delighted to seize back control and was always looking to do so, but it needs to be careful. Saying to the voters, we're back in control now so your referendum result can be forgotten is dangerous territory. Demanding a second referendum until they get their result is dangerous and transparent.
I'm not surprised there's a slight swing for Remain now considering the media never really liked it, but let's say we announced a second vote and Remain won it narrowly. A year down the line, I'm sure with renewed confidence the EU would be doubling down on its federal aims. I suspect polls would then show a swing-back to Leave. Therein lies the real danger. Announcing no more referendums would fan the flames. I'd generally fear for our country's future.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
Another Pandora's box opened. This precedent could get very interesting if/when we need to head to war next.
The Iraq legal advice was disclosed in full to the Chilcot Inquiry.
I read somewhere that he wanted to leave with no deal and then 'use the transition' to negotiate what we want. Not appearing to appreciate that no deal meant no transition in which to do that negotiation. But that seems so dumb that I suspect fake news.
Big question for me with DD is, is he clueless because he was sidelined or was he sidelined because he was clueless?
Oh it was fake news, it was true, David Davis really is that dumb.
Caroline Lucas: "the date on the Attorney General's advice suggests that the Cabinet did not get any formal legal advice from him before 13 November - the day MPs first asked for it to be published."
So... when the govt said that there was "Nothing to see", they were telling the truth because it had not yet been written? The mind boggles.... they charge down the path of Brexit with no idea of any legal implications or advice?
Do you really think that the PM had not received advice from the AG before the 13th November? This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
I had assumed that the PM received legal advice all the way through this process. I expected no less. So where is it? One document less than a month old? That is it?
This is reminiscent of the Brexit impact assessments - 57 of them - that, when publication was demanded, turned out not to exist.
I think the motion required publication of the "full and final" advice - key word being "final" (and probably designed to be deliverable rather than requiring a note of every meeting in the last 2 years)
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
I think about .5% of people on either side have budged an inch in 2 years. It's all reliant on circumstance.
A referendum would lead to a change of leader as May would lose a confidence vote immediately.
Not saying you're wrong but what would be the endgame of the MPs voting to ditch her in the (secret) confidence vote? Aside from who they would replace her with, what would that person do?
I think her replacement would at least be more elastic when it comes to renegotiating the deal and would have the added advantage of being able to get a majority against Corbyn in a snap general election. Even though May is better than Corbyn its unlikely in a GE she'd do any better than standing still.
The EU is quite clear there will be no renegotiation of the Deal and no Tory polls better than May and most poll worse with the possible exception of Boris
Can anyone answer a puzzle about the now popular Norway or Norway + solution? Let us say that a WA is done in due course on the basis that we remain as if in EU until the end of the transition period, after which we continue in the single market and CU, either as members of EFTA or effectively shadowing its terms. That's all fine, and is my personal preferred solution. BUT how could the EU agree to any of that without repeating the Irish backstop in the WA to cover circumstances in which we might want to leave that arrangement and move on to Canada + or whatever. Doesn't Norway just repeat the problem, which is that the EU does not intend us ever ever ever to be able to decide the Irish border question unilaterally? Which would end us exactly where we are now.
Comments
There may be a reasonable argument that yesterday’s defeats would have triggered an election before the FTPA codified the nature of confidence votes. Another thing to blame Cameron for...
It must be gut-wrenching to watch a party of decent racists be taken over by unsavoury racists, the sort of people you wouldn’t want to share a pint and some reminiscences about golliwogs with. Ukip has gone from a party for second-hand Jag drivers who even worked with a coloured lad once to the home of statist schemies eager that the ‘rapefugees’ not eat into their share of the benefits pot. Batten may yet be vindicated. Ukip is doing better in the polls of late and may be able to lay claim to ‘Brexit betrayed’ voters and those motivated by right-wing identity politics. Flirting with fascism is no longer grounds for electoral expulsion. The Labour Party broke the cordon sanitaire around anti-Semitism and making common cause with extremists and paid no price for it. The acceptance of radical prejudice in the mainstream has created breathing space for the fringes to expand into more taboo territory. Ukip’s association with the extra-parliamentary right might discomfit Nigel Farage but it might also give them a new life as a nationalist-culturist party along the lines of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally or Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party.
Since the foregoing has been uncharitable to Farage, let’s end with one observation in his favour. Whatever his strategic calculations, when the party he loves became too extreme for him, he withdrew his name and his coin. He did not vainly present himself as a saviour battling to rescue its ‘soul’ and nor did he make us endure snot-and-sniffle recollections of what his old dad would have made of it all. He did the only logical thing you can do when an organisation you are a member of democratically and overwhelmingly opts for extremism: he refused to go along with it. Nothing in the conduct of his resignation elevates him from the bar room rabble-rouser that he is but he has underscored the moral cowardice of Labour members and backbenchers. When his party went after Muslims, Farage walked away. When their party went after Jews, Labour MPs went along with it.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/nigel-farage-finally-reaches-his-breaking-point-with-ukip/
This all depends on the various actors being sensible and displaying good will, both of which are optimistic assumptions.
Be interesting to see how May's successor, assuming she's soon overboard, tries to tie the Conservatives back together.
If Cameron had let the headbangers sod off and join UKIP we wouldn't be in this mess
Next you'll be blaming international Jewry.
Oh wait some other Leavers got there before with their vile anti Soros stuff.
But, the ERG have made it much harder (probably impossible).
Anyway, we shall see how things progress.
I don’t know what happens if a PM is found in contempt, but the Commons still refuses to NC the government.
That said Mrs May's deal achieved most of the end goals with a bit of compromise here and there.
The arrogant idiot said the only reason we might have a transition period as a favour to the EU.
This has been the conundrum for the last 2 years. May just wasn't strong enough to admit that was the case until the last couple of weeks.
That's the real problem here, the government has kicked the can down the road for as long as possible on this point, until they had to admit the facts.
Benedict Arnold seems a better comparison.
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1070282074412728320
BUT
France, Netherlands, Denmark might object over fishing.
I don't think Ireland would.
Spain might reraise Gibraltar.
It's not as simple, even if the commons agrees on the path forward, as some think might it is to pivot to ultra-soft Brexit.
Much like their behavior in the Gina Miller case and in the Article 50 case.
HM Government behaving like a patient with severe symptoms who puts off going to the GP in case it's bad news. What a sh*t show.
“Within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. The new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit, but they will be fully negotiated.”
David Davis
14 July 2016
“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
David Davis
15 November 2016
I mean he thought all our deals would just roll over
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1052267923795038213
And I won't even mention the time he thought he'd get a trade deal with countries like Germany and France.
Full text here [edited to try and fix embedding]
But with the luxury of hindsight and the wisdom of recent experience, I take the view that the integrity of the Conservative Party is of less concern than isolating the headbangers.
Appeasing them led to this unholy mess.
Never again should we the motto.
* Thank goodness TM's GE 2017 gamble backfired. If she had won a big majority rather than lost the small one she had we would have been denied all of this.
This is demonstrating the disaster of the precedent yesterday. Who would want to give legal advice when it is going to have a CSI team all over it again and again looking for any conspiracy they can find.
“We're not really interested in a transition deal, but we'll consider one to be kind to the EU.”
David Davis
15 November 2016
(One of my favourites)
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/france-wealth-tax-changes-gilets-jaunes-protests-president-macron
If any group has been begging for punishment beatings and salting the Earth it is the more extreme Leavers. As an extreme Remainer I view Brexit as a punishment beating.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1070287248199946241
The vote would be legitimate.
Losers whining "we didn't turn up" doesn't change that
This is reminiscent of the Brexit impact assessments - 57 of them - that, when publication was demanded, turned out not to exist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42260350/david-davis-questioned-over-brexit-impact-assessments
https://twitter.com/mariacaulfield/status/1070288282146275328
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/ex-tory-mp-theresa-may-blocked-brexit-no-deal-planning/
I don't have an answer. Does anyone?
Big question for me with DD is, is he clueless because he was sidelined or was he sidelined because he was clueless?
CF the by election he called.
And his questions are so predictable
The question is how do we get there? It does not have to be like this. What we need now is leadership and the courage and confidence to deliver for the UK. We can deliver an honest and clean Brexit, leaving all the possibilities such as global free trade deals open for bright future. If we need to leave with no deal and negotiate a free trade agreement during the transition period, so be it. Let’s be clear and honest and tell the EU that’s what we are prepared to do.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/11/david-davis-there-has-long-been-an-alternative-to-this-discredited-draft-deal-its-the-canada-style-plan-that-tusk-and-barnier-offered-us.html
Parliament voted to honour the referendum result. It had no intention of doing so therefore they are liars, but we knew that anyway. Parliament will be delighted to seize back control and was always looking to do so, but it needs to be careful. Saying to the voters, we're back in control now so your referendum result can be forgotten is dangerous territory. Demanding a second referendum until they get their result is dangerous and transparent.
I'm not surprised there's a slight swing for Remain now considering the media never really liked it, but let's say we announced a second vote and Remain won it narrowly. A year down the line, I'm sure with renewed confidence the EU would be doubling down on its federal aims. I suspect polls would then show a swing-back to Leave. Therein lies the real danger. Announcing no more referendums would fan the flames. I'd generally fear for our country's future.
https://twitter.com/domwalsh1973/status/1065669218241265664
https://twitter.com/Sally_CF71/status/1065685776799797248
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1070291423533170688
Curtains for Cox as far as the Brexiteers are concerned.