If Mrs May can successfully run the clock down to Jan 21 I agree this is then the only option left to the HoC.
It’s a shit deal. The only other two options - no deal Brexit and Remaining - are in different ways worse.
I agree with you that a No Deal Brexit is worse. But why do you say that about Remaining, given that you voted Remain in the referendum?
Because though I don’t like it the public voted for Leave and are entitled to see it seen through. Not to see it through would be hugely corrosive for public belief in democracy and would lead, as @Alanbrooke rightly pointed out yesterday, to a Britain that was a bottom tier nation within the EU and one that was highly disruptive.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
Beautifully argued. I am slowly coming around to that position. Indeed every threat of violence and/or rioting brings me closer to it. As I say below, I do not see such threats from Remainers.
You’ve had a couple of people on an internet board say they fear it would be the outcome. Hate to break it to you but that not the same as a real world threat
What commends you to this acuous statement regardingstop, something that I daresay will placate Johnson, Davis, JRM and Raab.
If Mrs May can successfully run the clock down to Jan 21 I agree this is then the only option left to the HoC.
It’s a shit deal. The only other two options - no deal Brexit and Remaining - are in different ways worse.
I agree with you that a No Deal Brexit is worse. But why do you say that about Remaining, given that you voted Remain in the referendum?
Because though I don’t like it the public voted for Leave and are entitled to see it seen through. Not to see it through would be hugely corrosive for public belief in democracy and would lead, as @Alanbrooke rightly pointed out yesterday, to a Britain that was a bottom tier nation within the EU and one that was highly disruptive.
I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
If they cannot countenance no deal then that is exactly what they should do, rather than either risk that no deal scenario in a referendum or put deal vs remain on the ballot to fix up an outcome. As you say tehre would be a backlash, but if they don't think no deal is an acceptable choice and will refuse to do it, don't even bother asking us. After all, most (not all) referendum advocates are such because they think remain will win. We know this because it is rare it is framed as merely being about a choice, it is much more common to see it as 'Brexit can be stopped' 'have a vote to stop brexit' and so on. But if no deal would win clearly they would no follow through as they refuse to accept it as a possibility. Ergo there is no need to ask us. Do it, then face the consequences.
Deal v Remain wouldn't be fixing the outcome - HY will be along shortly to tell us all how close it could be. Although leavers are doing themselves no favours in tarnishing what may end as their option.
Macron versus the gilets jaunes reminds me of Thatcher versus the miners in the eighties. The same lack of empathy and conviction that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Something May should have been doing since before triggering Article 50.
Except that she promised big business that there would be a deal. They aren't going to be very happy right now.
Yep, should have threatened and prepared for no deal from the start and negotiated from there.
Instead we started assuming there would be an amazing deal, and are now panicking and starting to prepare for no deal without enough time.
Amateur hour
I’ve said all along we should have started from No Deal and works inwards. It was the only way to negotiate with someone like the EU. And we should have said that we were going to have a hard border in Ireland, and we would look at ways to mitigate. The U.K. voted to leave and NI is part of that. If Ireland wanted to avoid a hard border then they could trigger article 50 and leave too
Yes, I can imagine a naked threat to raise the barricades at Crossmaglen and deploy patrol boats on the Foyle would have been a real hoot these last two years.
If it had been said and then we had a political declaration like we do now to find common ground then we would have been in the same position as now but moving away from the no deal not towards it.
You clearly have precisely zero grasp of Irish politics. You don’t use the border as a bargaining chip.
Varadkar has all along.
Nope. We are the ones leaving. We need the plan.
That we are leaving does not make a blind bit of difference as to whether someone else can use things as a bargaining chip or not. It's a negotiation, both sides have bargaining chips regardless of who asked for the game to begin. Whether you think Varadkar has done so on the border or you think he has not doesn't make your statement that us leaving means it cannot be a bargaining chip make any sense.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
Quite. Pro-EU MPs (or the majority of them that were in the 2015 Parliament and voted for the referendum) created the problem that they are now wrestling with. It should be their responsibility to solve it, rather than either passing the buck back to the people again, or allowing something that they think disastrous to happen by default.
If you think Brexit a catastrophe then stop it. Desist from parroting rubbish about the national interest, act in what you believe to be the national interest. Form a new Government, revoke A50 and repeal all the withdrawal legislation. Then vote for a dissolution and subject yourselves to the people's judgement at a General Election.
Sorry, I know I've been banging on a bit about this recently, but the last few years has convinced me that referendums have little or no place in Parliamentary democracies. Or, at any rate, the last couple that we've held have been angry, divisive blood-lettings. The fallout from them has been awful. Let Parliament make decisions, and then let people sack Parliamentarians if they don't like them. Done.
It's clear from what May said today that she isn't even going to ask the EU for what the DUP wants.
So the current strategy makes no sense - even if she runs down the clock such that somehow Parliament does vote for her deal in January that would then collapse the Govt anyway assuming DUP sticks to its word.
So surely Con backbenchers - whatever their views on Brexit - have to now see that May cannot now be their optimal leader. Their next step has to be to get a leader who will get the DUP back on side.
What happens after that, who knows. But the above has to be their optimal next step.
The DUP won't get rid of May unless the backstop passes. Absent that, whilst I dare say they'd ideally like a Prime Minister more to their taste, I imagine they'll just leave her to flap and flounder around uselessly as the clock ticks down.
If May stays in power, keeps trying to sell her deal, and Parliament continues to refuse to buy it, then eventually the clock counts down to zero and Hard Brexit happens by default. That would be just fine with them.
Utter, utter incompetent scum. They deserve to be out of power for a generation, if not forever.
The Tory party has shown once again that it will *always* put its' interests ahead of the national interest. Be gone - pests!
As opposed to the pathetic Labour Party whose leader has a Deal plan virtually identical to May's but refuses to support it by putting party politics ahead of the national interest
This is it. Finding the difference between May's Deal and Labour's ideal Deal is splitting hairs. Their opposition can only be explained by their prizing a GE over the good of the country.
Yet Labour still trail the Tories with Yougov today anyway
Well - Yougov has been the most pro-Tory of the pollsters for several months now, and today's figures do imply a small 0.7% swing in Labour's favour since June 2017. It would imply another Hung Parliament but with the Tories sufficiently weakened to be unable to carry on - despite still being the largest party.
Sound of straws being grasped. If you think things are being run poorly now imagine a world where Corbyn is PM but has to run all his decisions through the SNP, DUP, Libdems, Plaid and Greens, with all of them wanting to make political points to differentiate and not appear to be pro government and suffer like the LDs in 2015. We will be looking back fondly on the simple Brexit negotiations!
No straws are being grasped at all- I am simply pointing out the psephological implications of the Yougov figures!.
If Mrs May can successfully run the clock down to Jan 21 I agree this is then the only option left to the HoC.
It’s a shit deal. The only other two options - no deal Brexit and Remaining - are in different ways worse.
I agree with you that a No Deal Brexit is worse. But why do you say that about Remaining, given that you voted Remain in the referendum?
Because though I don’t like it the public voted for Leave and are entitled to see it seen through. Not to see it through would be hugely corrosive for public belief in democracy and would lead, as @Alanbrooke rightly pointed out yesterday, to a Britain that was a bottom tier nation within the EU and one that was highly disruptive.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
Beautifully argued. I am slowly coming around to that position. Indeed every threat of violence and/or rioting brings me closer to it. As I say below, I do not see such threats from Remainers.
You’ve had a couple of people on an internet board say they fear it would be the outcome. Hate to break it to you but that not the same as a real world threat
Dog whistling and hoping it becomes self-fulfilling.
Deal v Remain wouldn't be fixing the outcome - HY will be along shortly to tell us all how close it could be. Although leavers are doing themselves no favours in tarnishing what may end as their option.
It might not guarantee a remain win but it does unjustifiably restrict the choices of the people to fix it for either deal or remain. If the people are going to be asked no deal is a choice they could make. If parliament is too afraid to offer that choice they should not ask us anything. They were elected to sort this out, they can earn their money.
Something May should have been doing since before triggering Article 50.
Except that she promised big business that there would be a deal. They aren't going to be very happy right now.
Yep, should have threatened and prepared for no deal from the start and negotiated from there.
Instead we started assuming there would be an amazing deal, and are now panicking and starting to prepare for no deal without enough time.
Amateur hour
I’ve said all along we should have started from No Deal and works inwards. It was the only way to negotiate with someone like the EU. And we should have said that we were going to have a hard border in Ireland, and we would look at ways to mitigate. The U.K. voted to leave and NI is part of that. If Ireland wanted to avoid a hard border then they could trigger article 50 and leave too
Yes, I can imagine a naked threat to raise the barricades at Crossmaglen and deploy patrol boats on the Foyle would have been a real hoot these last two years.
If it had been said and then we had a political declaration like we do now to find common ground then we would have been in the same position as now but moving away from the no deal not towards it.
You clearly have precisely zero grasp of Irish politics. You don’t use the border as a bargaining chip.
Varadkar has all along.
Nope. We are the ones leaving. We need the plan.
We are leaving the EU but staying neighbours. We both need a plan.
Because though I don’t like it the public voted for Leave and are entitled to see it seen through. Not to see it through would be hugely corrosive for public belief in democracy and would lead, as @Alanbrooke rightly pointed out yesterday, to a Britain that was a bottom tier nation within the EU and one that was highly disruptive.
As opposed to a highly disrupted bottom tier nation outside of the EU ?
As I pointed out, Alanbrooke’s article was essentially self contradictory, arguing on the one hand that we would have zero influence, while on the other that politics within Europe was tending in our direction.
I’d accept May’s deal, if she were able to get the Commons to vote for it, but she can’t. I won’t readily accept an enforced game of chicken between her deal and no deal - the majority’s least favoured outcome.
If May won't budge, her party won't get rid of her, and Parliament will neither swallow her deal nor vote to remove the Government, then we end up with Hard Brexit by default.
The fact that most MPs would probably rather just cancel the whole thing is completely irrelevant if they lack the will to take the necessary action.
Agreed. Which is why it’s important they realise that sooner rather than later. May is not the only one with a tendency to prevaricate (though she has turned it into an art form).
Brxiters are really fucked up deluded if they think they can hold out to 1st April 2019 to get their wet dream of a hard Brexit.
People had to have known what bad shape it was in a long time ago, right? How do so many huge projects get away with pretending for so long things are going ok?
People had to have known what bad shape it was in a long time ago, right? How do so many huge projects get away with pretending for so long things are going ok?
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
That does not follow at all. Nor will it wash as an excuse. The choice is not between No Deal or Remain. There is a deal right there agreed between the two sides. It may not be perfect but it is a deal which avoids either damaging the econmy or destroying our democracy. It completely negates your argument.
If Parliament choose to stop Brexit it is not for lack of an alternative but because they think the democratic decision made in 2016 was wrong. Pretending it is in the national interest is simply to try to deflect public anger at their scorn for democracy.
Couldn't be arsed to find the relevant article, so just did a quick google image search. There's wankers on all sides, unfortunately. Isn't Bad Al part of the New European?
We need to revoke A50 and hold a referendum if MPs can’t ageee a deal. No deal was not on the ballot paper last time.
Yes it was. Remain warned everyone there could be huge chaos and disruption by leaving, and that it was a massive leap in the dark. It would be a perfectly legitimate outcome to no deal, especially since parliament agreed to it in legislative form in the event nothing else was agreed.
I don't want no deal, and I think parliament has failed to agree anything and thus a referendum is probably necessary, but there is nothing illegitimate about no deal, and we were warned something like this was possible, and parliament accepted it as well no matter how they bleat now about how horrible that would be.
Deal v Remain wouldn't be fixing the outcome - HY will be along shortly to tell us all how close it could be. Although leavers are doing themselves no favours in tarnishing what may end as their option.
It might not guarantee a remain win but it does unjustifiably restrict the choices of the people to fix it for either deal or remain. If the people are going to be asked no deal is a choice they could make. If parliament is too afraid to offer that choice they should not ask us anything. They were elected to sort this out, they can earn their money.
No sensible or responsible person or politician can advocate leaving straight to no deal. Even if WTO is a desirable end state, you go there slowly in stages, not cold turkey.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that.
Or they could just vote for the deal
Indeed. They could. But seemingly they won't.
My feeling is that there will be a backlash from some group, whatever happens. So maybe it is now best to take the decision which Parliament thinks best for the country. We are meant to be a Parliamentary democracy after all. And then face down those who disagree and explain why you have done what you have done. If that means explaining that the referendum should not have been done or that the options were too vague or that the government adopted the wrong red lines and failed at negotiating a deal or that the sort of Brexit that was sold was unachievable or irreconcilable, so be it. Have a bit of courage.
Deal - and really do this - with some of the concerns which animated many leavers. Many of these will not be alleviated by Brexit but made worse. And some are (and always have been) within Britain's control. Level with voters. Be honest. Be brutally truthful. Speak some hard truths to the voters. And face down those who threaten violence or who have hidden agendas or ulterior motives.
But to refuse to do what you think best for the country because you are scared of the voters or because you feel that you have to intone "Will of the People" repeatedly as if we were some Ruritanian country in the 1930's is pathetic. It shames Parliament.
Utter, utter incompetent scum. They deserve to be out of power for a generation, if not forever.
The Tory party has shown once again that it will *always* put its' interests ahead of the national interest. Be gone - pests!
As opposed to the pathetic Labour Party whose leader has a Deal plan virtually identical to May's but refuses to support it by putting party politics ahead of the national interest
This is it. Finding the difference between May's Deal and Labour's ideal Deal is splitting hairs. Their opposition can only be explained by their prizing a GE over the good of the country.
Yet Labour still trail the Tories with Yougov today anyway
Well - Yougov has been the most pro-Tory of the pollsters for several months now, and today's figures do imply a small 0.7% swing in Labour's favour since June 2017. It would imply another Hung Parliament but with the Tories sufficiently weakened to be unable to carry on - despite still being the largest party.
Projecting from current polls to an election result is even more pointless now than usual. The circumstances of an election coming about, which party leaders stay and which go, and the Brexit resolutions the parties choose to stand on (and the extent of unity around them) will all have a dramatic impact on the campaign.
I agree that the polls may be less meaningful than is normally the case - possibly because Brexit has effectively frozen out the Opposition and other major issues from most media commentary. It continues to be my view that we would not end up with a Brexit election - people are much more interested in other issues which would come to the fore in the course of a 5 or 6 week campaign. Very clear evidence of that from 2017.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
That does not follow at all. Nor will it wash as an excuse. The choice is not between No Deal or Remain. There is a deal right there agreed between the two sides. It may not be perfect but it is a deal which avoids either damaging the econmy or destroying our democracy. It completely negates your argument.
If Parliament choose to stop Brexit it is not for lack of an alternative but because they think the democratic decision made in 2016 was wrong. Pretending it is in the national interest is simply to try to deflect public anger at their scorn for democracy.
I agree with you Richard...the May deal is as good as it gets...the alternatives are pretty dire....
Deal v Remain wouldn't be fixing the outcome - HY will be along shortly to tell us all how close it could be. Although leavers are doing themselves no favours in tarnishing what may end as their option.
It might not guarantee a remain win but it does unjustifiably restrict the choices of the people to fix it for either deal or remain. If the people are going to be asked no deal is a choice they could make. If parliament is too afraid to offer that choice they should not ask us anything. They were elected to sort this out, they can earn their money.
In Germany. Out of the loop. What’s the general vibe. From here it looks like May prioritising saving her own skin. Bad form. Is that true?
I've just had a lovely evening at a Christmas dinner. Most people not aware of what's happening, so no general vibe on latest political developments as such.
Life will go on, babies will be born, alcohol will be drunk, fun will be had. If the politicians mess this up in a way that can't be ignored there will be a lot of anger.
Deal v Remain wouldn't be fixing the outcome - HY will be along shortly to tell us all how close it could be. Although leavers are doing themselves no favours in tarnishing what may end as their option.
It might not guarantee a remain win but it does unjustifiably restrict the choices of the people to fix it for either deal or remain. If the people are going to be asked no deal is a choice they could make. If parliament is too afraid to offer that choice they should not ask us anything. They were elected to sort this out, they can earn their money.
No sensible or responsible person or politician can advocate leaving straight to no deal. Even if WTO is a desirable end state, you go there slowly in stages, not cold turkey.
I agree with you that a No Deal Brexit is worse. But why do you say that about Remaining, given that you voted Remain in the referendum?
Because though I don’t like it the public voted for Leave and are entitled to see it seen through. Not to see it through would be hugely corrosive for public belief in democracy and would lead, as @Alanbrooke rightly pointed out yesterday, to a Britain that was a bottom tier nation within the EU and one that was highly disruptive.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
Beautifully argued. I am slowly coming around to that position. Indeed every threat of violence and/or rioting brings me closer to it. As I say below, I do not see such threats from Remainers.
You’ve had a couple of people on an internet board say they fear it would be the outcome. Hate to break it to you but that not the same as a real world threat
Dog whistling and hoping it becomes self-fulfilling.
Inciting violence...
I doubt that those sort of violent types are regular readers of PB (or viewers of Pienar)
Utter, utter incompetent scum. They deserve to be out of power for a generation, if not forever.
The Tory party has shown once again that it will *always* put its' interests ahead of the national interest. Be gone - pests!
As opposed to the pathetic Labour Party whose leader has a Deal plan virtually identical to May's but refuses to support it by putting party politics ahead of the national interest
This is it. Finding the difference between May's Deal and Labour's ideal Deal is splitting hairs. Their opposition can only be explained by their prizing a GE over the good of the country.
Yet Labour still trail the Tories with Yougov today anyway
Well - Yougov has been the most pro-Tory of the pollsters for several months now, and today's figures do imply a small 0.7% swing in Labour's favour since June 2017. It would imply another Hung Parliament but with the Tories sufficiently weakened to be unable to carry on - despite still being the largest party.
Projecting from current polls to an election result is even more pointless now than usual. The circumstances of an election coming about, which party leaders stay and which go, and the Brexit resolutions the parties choose to stand on (and the extent of unity around them) will all have a dramatic impact on the campaign.
I agree that the polls may be less meaningful than is normally the case - possibly because Brexit has effectively frozen out the Opposition and other major issues from most media commentary. It continues to be my view that we would not end up with a Brexit election - people are much more interested in other issues which would come to the fore in the course of a 5 or 6 week campaign. Very clear evidence of that from 2017.
2017 was a government opportunistically calling a GE to improve its prospects for future Brexit negotiations. There is a world of difference with a GE brought about by the collapse of government during Brexit. I can't see a new GE escaping from Brexit so easily,
It's clear from what May said today that she isn't even going to ask the EU for what the DUP wants.
So the current strategy makes no sense - even if she runs down the clock such that somehow Parliament does vote for her deal in January that would then collapse the Govt anyway assuming DUP sticks to its word.
So surely Con backbenchers - whatever their views on Brexit - have to now see that May cannot now be their optimal leader. Their next step has to be to get a leader who will get the DUP back on side.
What happens after that, who knows. But the above has to be their optimal next step.
The DUP won't get rid of May unless the backstop passes. Absent that, whilst I dare say they'd ideally like a Prime Minister more to their taste, I imagine they'll just leave her to flap and flounder around uselessly as the clock ticks down.
If May stays in power, keeps trying to sell her deal, and Parliament continues to refuse to buy it, then eventually the clock counts down to zero and Hard Brexit happens by default. That would be just fine with them.
But would it? There comes a point when the DUP has to watch its own voters. A hard, unmanaged Brexit would hit NI worse than any other part of the U.K. Especially in agriculture, which is a happy hunting ground for them.
It's clear from what May said today that she isn't even going to ask the EU for what the DUP wants.
So the current strategy makes no sense - even if she runs down the clock such that somehow Parliament does vote for her deal in January that would then collapse the Govt anyway assuming DUP sticks to its word.
So surely Con backbenchers - whatever their views on Brexit - have to now see that May cannot now be their optimal leader. Their next step has to be to get a leader who will get the DUP back on side.
What happens after that, who knows. But the above has to be their optimal next step.
The DUP won't get rid of May unless the backstop passes. Absent that, whilst I dare say they'd ideally like a Prime Minister more to their taste, I imagine they'll just leave her to flap and flounder around uselessly as the clock ticks down.
If May stays in power, keeps trying to sell her deal, and Parliament continues to refuse to buy it, then eventually the clock counts down to zero and Hard Brexit happens by default. That would be just fine with them.
Well in that case the Govt is gambling that it will lose the Meaningful Vote (whenever it actually happens) which seems a bit absurd.
And there's no guarantee we will end up with Hard Brexit - if the MV loses then I expect sometime around early February someone will put a motion to the Commons along the lines of "This House instructs the Govt to extend Article 50".
The motion will pass and even though the Govt might legally be able to ignore it, in practice it would be politically impossible to do so - so the Govt will end up having to extend Article 50.
We need to revoke A50 and hold a referendum if MPs can’t ageee a deal. No deal was not on the ballot paper last time.
Yes it was. Remain warned everyone there could be huge chaos and disruption by leaving, and that it was a massive leap in the dark. It would be a perfectly legitimate outcome to no deal, especially since parliament agreed to it in legislative form in the event nothing else was agreed.
I don't want no deal, and I think parliament has failed to agree anything and thus a referendum is probably necessary, but there is nothing illegitimate about no deal, and we were warned something like this was possible, and parliament accepted it as well no matter how they bleat now about how horrible that would be.
No deal is illegitimate in all but name...we cannot morally press ahead with something that our country is ill equipped for...
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that.
Or they could just vote for the deal
Indeed. They could. But seemingly they won't.
My feeling is that there will be a backlash from some group, whatever happens. So maybe it is now best to take the decision which Parliament thinks best for the country. We are meant to be a Parliamentary democracy after all. And then face down those who disagree and explain why you have done what you have done. If that means explaining that the referendum should not have been done or that the options were too vague or that the government adopted the wrong red lines and failed at negotiating a deal or that the sort of Brexit that was sold was unachievable or irreconcilable, so be it. Have a bit of courage.
Deal - and really do this - with some of the concerns which animated many leavers. Many of these will not be alleviated by Brexit but made worse. And some are (and always have been) within Britain's control. Level with voters. Be honest. Be brutally truthful. Speak some hard truths to the voters. And face down those who threaten violence or who have hidden agendas or ulterior motives.
But to refuse to do what you think best for the country because you are scared of the voters or because you feel that you have to intone "Will of the People" repeatedly as if we were some Ruritanian country in the 1930's is pathetic. It shames Parliament.
I agree, parliament has to act and bring this madness to an end. People will be more angry in the teeth of a no deal brexit compared to usual service resumed of retracting article 50.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
Quite. Pro-EU MPs (or the majority of them that were in the 2015 Parliament and voted for the referendum) created the problem that they are now wrestling with. It should be their responsibility to solve it, rather than either passing the buck back to the people again, or allowing something that they think disastrous to happen by default.
If you think Brexit a catastrophe then stop it. Desist from parroting rubbish about the national interest, act in what you believe to be the national interest. Form a new Government, revoke A50 and repeal all the withdrawal legislation. Then vote for a dissolution and subject yourselves to the people's judgement at a General Election.
Sorry, I know I've been banging on a bit about this recently, but the last few years has convinced me that referendums have little or no place in Parliamentary democracies. Or, at any rate, the last couple that we've held have been angry, divisive blood-lettings. The fallout from them has been awful. Let Parliament make decisions, and then let people sack Parliamentarians if they don't like them. Done.
This fight is about our inability to let people sack our European masters. Please point me to the polling station where I can sack Clown Prince Jean-Claude Juncker.
Utter, utter incompetent scum. They deserve to be out of power for a generation, if not forever.
The Tory party has shown once again that it will *always* put its' interests ahead of the national interest. Be gone - pests!
As opposed to the pathetic Labour Party whose leader has a Deal plan virtually identical to May's but refuses to support it by putting party politics ahead of the national interest
This is it. Finding the difference between May's Deal and Labour's ideal Deal is splitting hairs. Their opposition can only be explained by their prizing a GE over the good of the country.
Yet Labour still trail the Tories with Yougov today anyway
Well - Yougov has been the most pro-Tory of the pollsters for several months now, and today's figures do imply a small 0.7% swing in Labour's favour since June 2017. It would imply another Hung Parliament but with the Tories sufficiently weakened to be unable to carry on - despite still being the largest party.
Projecting from current polls to an election result is even more pointless now than usual. The circumstances of an election coming about, which party leaders stay and which go, and the Brexit resolutions the parties choose to stand on (and the extent of unity around them) will all have a dramatic impact on the campaign.
I agree that the polls may be less meaningful than is normally the case - possibly because Brexit has effectively frozen out the Opposition and other major issues from most media commentary. It continues to be my view that we would not end up with a Brexit election - people are much more interested in other issues which would come to the fore in the course of a 5 or 6 week campaign. Very clear evidence of that from 2017.
2017 was a government opportunistically calling a GE to improve its prospects for future Brexit negotiations. There is a world of difference with a GE brought about by the collapse of government during Brexit. I can't see a new GE escaping from Brexit so easily,
Anyhow we all need to escape from this thread....
Brexit is far too technical for most people. and the key point is that they are sick to death of it. They want to move on and - in my view- would respond very positively to other issues being raised. Even at the time of the three-day week Ted Heath failed to keep the three weeks of the February 1974 election campaign entirely focussed on the coal strike.
This fight is about our inability to let people sack our European masters. Please point me to the polling station where I can sack Clown Prince Jean-Claude Juncker.
If the voters pick a pro-Brexit political party (one with clearly articulated aims rather than meaningless soundbites) in sufficient numbers then it can win a General Election and take us out on its own authority. No more referendums.
And it takes considerably less than 50% of the vote to win an election, after all.
Either the public will care enough about this whole farrago to get rid of the people responsible, or they won't. Either they'll care enough, at the next election or a subsequent one, to install a Leaver Government, or they won't.
The current situation is deeply unsatisfactory, but there's no point in supposing that the Parliament we have at present will vote enthusiastically for a clean Brexit. It won't. If one happens it will be by accident not design. People can shout as long and as loud as they like at a man standing on the end of a pier who hates water and can't swim, urging him to jump. Doesn't mean he'll do it.
In our system, clarity can only come through elections. The whole problem with the EU referendum is that we took the democratic decision to go, and then saddled ourselves with a Parliament unwilling to implement that decision. And yes, May turned out to be all mouth and no trousers, and no, that's not good enough. But we are where we are.
If we vote for a party that has a clear manifesto - about the economy, or Europe, or anything else - and one that its members are united around and enthusiastic about, then we can have a much better expectation that it will be able to deliver. And if it doesn't then we throw it out and elect a better alternative the next time.
Comments
Macron seems to have caved
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/12/10/crossrail-delayed-indefinitely-bosses-warn-could-require-17bn/
If May stays in power, keeps trying to sell her deal, and Parliament continues to refuse to buy it, then eventually the clock counts down to zero and Hard Brexit happens by default. That would be just fine with them.
Inciting violence...
The May deal is the best they are going to get.
If Parliament choose to stop Brexit it is not for lack of an alternative but because they think the democratic decision made in 2016 was wrong. Pretending it is in the national interest is simply to try to deflect public anger at their scorn for democracy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/7ashev/what_do_you_make_of_the_new_european_glorifying/
I don't want no deal, and I think parliament has failed to agree anything and thus a referendum is probably necessary, but there is nothing illegitimate about no deal, and we were warned something like this was possible, and parliament accepted it as well no matter how they bleat now about how horrible that would be.
My feeling is that there will be a backlash from some group, whatever happens. So maybe it is now best to take the decision which Parliament thinks best for the country. We are meant to be a Parliamentary democracy after all. And then face down those who disagree and explain why you have done what you have done. If that means explaining that the referendum should not have been done or that the options were too vague or that the government adopted the wrong red lines and failed at negotiating a deal or that the sort of Brexit that was sold was unachievable or irreconcilable, so be it. Have a bit of courage.
Deal - and really do this - with some of the concerns which animated many leavers. Many of these will not be alleviated by Brexit but made worse. And some are (and always have been) within Britain's control. Level with voters. Be honest. Be brutally truthful. Speak some hard truths to the voters. And face down those who threaten violence or who have hidden agendas or ulterior motives.
But to refuse to do what you think best for the country because you are scared of the voters or because you feel that you have to intone "Will of the People" repeatedly as if we were some Ruritanian country in the 1930's is pathetic. It shames Parliament.
I agree with you Richard...the May deal is as good as it gets...the alternatives are pretty dire....
The voter with a pencil in front of a ballot paper on which 'no deal' is an option.
Life will go on, babies will be born, alcohol will be drunk, fun will be had. If the politicians mess this up in a way that can't be ignored there will be a lot of anger.
Anyhow we all need to escape from this thread....
And there's no guarantee we will end up with Hard Brexit - if the MV loses then I expect sometime around early February someone will put a motion to the Commons along the lines of "This House instructs the Govt to extend Article 50".
The motion will pass and even though the Govt might legally be able to ignore it, in practice it would be politically impossible to do so - so the Govt will end up having to extend Article 50.
May's deal is coherent on all the tests....
And it takes considerably less than 50% of the vote to win an election, after all.
Either the public will care enough about this whole farrago to get rid of the people responsible, or they won't. Either they'll care enough, at the next election or a subsequent one, to install a Leaver Government, or they won't.
The current situation is deeply unsatisfactory, but there's no point in supposing that the Parliament we have at present will vote enthusiastically for a clean Brexit. It won't. If one happens it will be by accident not design. People can shout as long and as loud as they like at a man standing on the end of a pier who hates water and can't swim, urging him to jump. Doesn't mean he'll do it.
In our system, clarity can only come through elections. The whole problem with the EU referendum is that we took the democratic decision to go, and then saddled ourselves with a Parliament unwilling to implement that decision. And yes, May turned out to be all mouth and no trousers, and no, that's not good enough. But we are where we are.
If we vote for a party that has a clear manifesto - about the economy, or Europe, or anything else - and one that its members are united around and enthusiastic about, then we can have a much better expectation that it will be able to deliver. And if it doesn't then we throw it out and elect a better alternative the next time.
New thread