I'm not sure what the pundits are saying but my sense is that this will prove a more significant win for May than the numbers suggest.
She's now there for a year whatever anyone might wish which means she can largely ignore the ERGs and more importantly her regard amongst the public has increased enormously.
Nothing painted a more telling picture than the juxtaposition of Mrs May touring Europe trying her best to get a deal and the bitter figure of Rees Mogg sulking that he couldn't get his own way and she wouldn't resign.
No one likes to see a bully and watching a man beat up a woman is particularly repulsive. i don't know whether there have been polls out but I doubt her popularity has ever been higher
Indeed. Rees Mogg certainly fits the image of a misogynist bully. He is a pathetic embarrassment to his country and his gender. He has to some extent had his comeuppance. I can't help hoping it only gets worse for this loathsome little man
To be honest, I voted remain after a lot of in decision. However I think your description of JRM is totally unfair. He always comes across as very polite. Also his arguments are sound , whether you agree with them is a different matter.
I appreciate his general manners, but he seems to be getting increasingly petty and whiny with some of his comments, on May last night and Carney etc.
Yeah.. I'm not sure "using reasonable grammar and not shouting" equates to politeness. To me, he comes across as condescending, and slightly annoyed that stupid people are asking him questions or daring not to agree with him. Owen Paterson has a similar tone... they both come across like a Victorian father running out of patience at having to explain the rules of cricket to their not-entirely-interested 7 year old daughter for the nth time. He really doesn't want to lose his shit with her, but why won't she JUST LEARN?
And as the recipient of that message - a reasonably capable bloke in my 40s - it comes across as EXTREMELY rude.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
I repeat, because some people are not understanding the choices:
- The deal - No Brexit - No deal, managed or otherwise
There is neither time nor will for another referendum, nor is there time nor will for another negotiation.
We have a decent deal; Remainer and Leaver wreckers need to hold their noses and vote for it.
The deal is dead. The only question is what comes next.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
I repeat, because some people are not understanding the choices:
- The deal - No Brexit - No deal, managed or otherwise
There is neither time nor will for another referendum, nor is there time nor will for another negotiation.
We have a decent deal; Remainer and Leaver wreckers need to hold their noses and vote for it.
There is will for a second referendum - masses of Labour MPs want it already and if they cannot get a GE it is the next option, and some Tories already want it and May may have no other option for her own deal.
So the only question is time, and if the EU will permit an extension so we can deal/no deal/or remain after a campaign, with the necessary time afterward for legislative and other preparations put on hold because of the campaigning.
There may not be time, but there is will. That's part of the problem, in that there is the will for many different options, but not the opportunity or time for them and MPs not recognising that.
There is not will within the only body that has another referendum within its gift - the executive.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
Yours is a good suggestion, which is why the Commons won't allow it.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
It is at least conceivable now that May could propose a referendum. Before now she'd be no confidenced if she tried. It's the delay before the MV that is problematic for me because presumably she won't remotely change tack until that falls, and she is intending to push that one as late as possible. Getting the votes for it through is not easy but at least possible.
Given the only other options seem to be 'We do nothing until March' it has to be worth a try.
On the less probable sclae perhaps the Mays and Corbyns should have a Christmas meal together to try to work something out.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
Yours is a good suggestion, which is why the Commons won't allow it.
It would be a democratic atrocity to have a referendum and exclude the option that was by some way the most popular according to all opinion polls.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
The only reason that occurs to me is that most of them don't think anybody else could do a better job in terms of the Brexit negotiation (which is true: now the deal is on the table the EU aren't interested in talking anymore) so they're going to let her carry the can for the defeat of her agreement - and also the fallout from No Deal, which looks like the most probable final outcome at this stage. Those who voted against her consisted, presumably, of some very desperate Remainers who can see the writing on the wall, walking hand-in-hand with hard Brexiteers expressing their disdain for May's agreement and aiming for No Deal by default.
Once May has been used as a human shield/punchbag - for the unloved Deal itself, as a fall gal for Parliament's failure to agree on any alternative, and for her lack of preparation for a Hard Brexit - then she'll be handed the bottle of whisky and the pearl-handled pistol. If she hasn't already used them of her own volition by then, of course.
This is a course of action that they may come to bitterly regret. If there's a VoNC and an early election then they're relying on May resigning out of duty, giving them the two week pantomime window mandated by the FTPA to crown a successor. But if May sees her duty as not abandoning her post in a hurricane and choosing to go down with the ship then they can't shift her, so they end up having her lead them into another election. Even worse, if May does go but they can't agree on a unity candidate to succeed her, then they would go into the election campaign with no leader and Prime Ministerial candidate at all. Under those circumstances, most Tory MPs might just as well not bother to mount a defence of their seats and start looking for alternative employment immediately.
I’m not sure that the ERGonaughts care - at least those of them sufficiently sentient to think ahead that far - and the rest, other than a handful, have no idea what to do about it.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
I repeat, because some people are not understanding the choices:
- The deal - No Brexit - No deal, managed or otherwise
There is neither time nor will for another referendum, nor is there time nor will for another negotiation.
We have a decent deal; Remainer and Leaver wreckers need to hold their noses and vote for it.
There is will for a second referendum - masses of Labour MPs want it already and if they cannothat.
There is not will within the only body that has another referendum within its gift - the executive.
Not yet. It is possible that May will simply continue to do nothing when the MV is lost, continue to kick the can toward March and either perform the most epic u-turn ever and seek to revoke or just let no deal happen. But however much she doesn't want a referendum if she actually believes the deal is the best option and it simply will not get through the Commons, the previously uncontemplatable could be contemplated. And given Labour could conceivably justify it to their members, and whatever happens she needs Labour votes, there is a path to getting it approved, albeit one which further splits her party and pisses off the DUP.
Shocking he is returning to the sport. He could have killed the other chap. I see Esparago thinks that is going over the top, but just because it worked out ok doesn't make some reckless acts ok.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
A better alternative (IMO) would be a ranked choice vote between Deal, No Deal and Remain. The chances of engineering any such second referendum aren’t terrifically high, though.
The Parluamentary arithmetic could not have been better designed to create deadlock, had Mandleson and Osborne sat down together with the late Walter Harrison to design it.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Because Mogg and his chums are thick. Davis, Baker, Johnson, Paterson, IDS, Jenkyns, Dorres.... Need I go on
It is another thing they have in common with Jeremy Corbyn. I really do think there should be a general intelligence test requirement to become an MP, and particularly to become a frontbencher
Oh great one,why don't you become a MP ,maybe voting for Cameron who promised a referendum on the result you hate,would you pass the intelligence test ?
Shocking he is returning to the sport. He could have killed the other chap. I see Esparago thinks that is going over the top, but just because it worked out ok doesn't make some reckless acts ok.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
Norway+ is actually a great compromise. If only May's obsession with being vindictive towards immigrants hadn't overridden her sense, she could have built a cross-party consensus around Norway+.
Now I sense it's far too late. The deal is done, the EU will rightly point out that three options stand before us, (Remain/May Deal/No Deal) and we should damn well make a decision.
Given R (Miller) v Secretary of State was decided on the basis Art 50 was irrevocable perhaps the Gov't could take it back to court..
That it was irrevocable was accepted on both sides and so was context to the decision, but was it actually crucial to the decision that was made? That is, does the revocability fundamentally alter some of the reasoning behind the decision?
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Yep.
In the cold light of day, that might well be the conclusion a significant number of them reach. But such is the internal Tory loathing of ERG many would rather saddle themselves with a loser for at least 12 more months (and perhaps 24 plus) than admit that Boris and Rees-Mogg might just have a point.
It would be hilarious if we have an early election where a chunk of them lose their seats as she goes for the UnHoly Trinity of Fuck-Ups: 2017 GE, Brexit negotiations and 2019 GE. In a gallows humour kind of hilarious.
Shocking he is returning to the sport. He could have killed the other chap. I see Esparago thinks that is going over the top, but just because it worked out ok doesn't make some reckless acts ok.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Yep.
In the cold light of day, that might well be the conclusion a significant number of them reach. But such is the internal Tory loathing of ERG many would rather saddle themselves with a loser for at least 12 more months (and perhaps 24 plus) than admit that Boris and Rees-Mogg might just have a point.
I think May needed to go too, but is there not a danger that the thinking above is just part of the excuse of the ERG crowd to justify why losing was not their fault, and to insist that really the others agreed they just dislike them personally? Displacement, in other words?
Given R (Miller) v Secretary of State was decided on the basis Art 50 was irrevocable perhaps the Gov't could take it back to court..
That it was irrevocable was accepted on both sides and so was context to the decision, but was it actually crucial to the decision that was made? That is, does the revocability fundamentally alter some of the reasoning behind the decision?
The truth is I don't know. Geoffrey Cox's opinion for the Gov't would be both interesting and relevant for the Gov't on the matter though. Perhaps the Gov't won't ask for confidential legal opinion on controversial matters due to Starmer's penchant for theatrics in the chamber though. If there is no controverial legal opinion, there is no humble address mechanism to try and embarass the Gov't into revealing it
The EUCO has made clear several times it will countenance an A50 extension for a referendum, provided the referendum's options don't contradict the terms of the negotiated WA.
i.e. the EU will give us time for a referendum as long as "no deal" isn't an option.
And then they wonder why 52% wanted out of their shitty little club....
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But surely a British PM has embarked on that path. May embarked on that path when she invoked A50. She went further down the path when she got the Withdrawal Act through Parliament. She went even further down that path when she betrayed the DUP. She got dangerously close to the end of the path when she signed off on the backstop before realising the depth of hatred for it in her party.
If they leave it that late then the game's already over. The EU Withdrawal Act and the rest of the Brexit legislation needs repealing before revocation may be considered.
The Establishment is powerless to act this time because it is split between two rival political parties, the members of each of which seem more afraid of helping the other than they are of a Hard Brexit. If that continues then No Deal is inevitable.
Caveat 1: IANAL Caveat 2: Legal is a whole different ball-game to political. However, your point was a legal one.
Legally, it seems the effects of the Act can be can-kicked indefinitely by Steve Barclay's signature on a bit of paper. And the restrictions on the Executive's treaty-signing powers all seem to be about concluding a Withdrawal Act (ie I can't find mention of revoking A50 in the Act)
(2)In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day. (3)Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1). ****(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations— (a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom,****
I'm pretty convinced TMay (or Corbyn, actually) wouldn't do this politically. But if Remainers did stage a parliamentary coup, I'm not sure there'd be a legal impediment up until *however long it takes Downing Street's printer to power-up* before 11pm on 29/3.
Given R (Miller) v Secretary of State was decided on the basis Art 50 was irrevocable perhaps the Gov't could take it back to court..
That it was irrevocable was accepted on both sides and so was context to the decision, but was it actually crucial to the decision that was made? That is, does the revocability fundamentally alter some of the reasoning behind the decision?
The truth is I don't know. Geoffrey Cox's opinion for the Gov't would be both interesting and relevant for the Gov't on the matter though. Perhaps the Gov't won't ask for confidential legal opinion on controversial matters due to Starmer's penchant for theatrics in the chamber though. If there is no controverial legal opinion, there is no humble address mechanism to try and embarass the Gov't into revealing it
Cox claimed today that he hasn’t considered the matter, as the government has no intention of doing so.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Yep.
In the cold light of day, that might well be the conclusion a significant number of them reach. But such is the internal Tory loathing of ERG many would rather saddle themselves with a loser for at least 12 more months (and perhaps 24 plus) than admit that Boris and Rees-Mogg might just have a point.
I think May needed to go too, but is there not a danger that the thinking above is just part of the excuse of the ERG crowd to justify why losing was not their fault, and to insist that really the others agreed they just dislike them personally? Displacement, in other words?
No - the Tory party really is very, very factional. The loathing for Boris is made all the worse because the membership likes him. Many Tory MPs have always found it impossible to fathom his appeal, still less how he could become Mayor of London. London, FFS.....
The EUCO has made clear several times it will countenance an A50 extension for a referendum, provided the referendum's options don't contradict the terms of the negotiated WA.
i.e. the EU will give us time for a referendum as long as "no deal" isn't an option.
And then they wonder why 52% wanted out of their shitty little club....
TBF to them, it's not like Parliament or the Electoral Commission would allow "no deal" to be on a referendum either.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Yep.
In the cold light of day, that might well be the conclusion a significant number of them reach. But such is the internal Tory loathing of ERG many would rather saddle themselves with a loser for at least 12 more months (and perhaps 24 plus) than admit that Boris and Rees-Mogg might just have a point.
I think May needed to go too, but is there not a danger that the thinking above is just part of the excuse of the ERG crowd to justify why losing was not their fault, and to insist that really the others agreed they just dislike them personally? Displacement, in other words?
No - the Tory party really is very, very factional. The loathing for Boris is made all the worse because the membership likes him. Many Tory MPs have always found it impossible to fathom his appeal, still less how he could become Mayor of London. London, FFS.....
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it also seems like something they will cling to to justify not an ounce of self reflection, and to dismiss their factional opponents as being invalid since they don't 'really' disagree with them, so they will probably overestimate the affect it had.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Perhaps in truth, many of the ERG don't actually want Brexit.
It's more a case of they don't understand the world well enough to work out what is necessary to do it, so they get frustrated when things don't work out like they did in their imagination.
Wanting to leave a room is easy. But if you don't know what a "key", "lock", "doorhandle" is then it's a real problem. I bang on about the Conservative Party's inability to understand Ireland quite a lot, but it's not limited to them by any stretch. And Ireland's quite close and mostly harmless. How the hell they are going to cope with, say, China, is beyond me.
I'm starting to think the ERG have played a blinder. The worst two scenarios for them would be:
A moderate is elected PM who somehow gets Theresa's Deal+ through parliament on the back of his honeymoon.
An ERG-ite is elected PM who will then have to take full responsibility for the ensuing No Deal fallout.
No, better to keep a crushed and humiliated Theresa in place, so they can engineer the No Deal they crave, but then blame her for the societal and economic collapse that follows.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
Norway+ is actually a great compromise. If only May's obsession with being vindictive towards immigrants hadn't overridden her sense, she could have built a cross-party consensus around Norway+.
Now I sense it's far too late. The deal is done, the EU will rightly point out that three options stand before us, (Remain/May Deal/No Deal) and we should damn well make a decision.
I’m not sure there would now be time to do Norway, without an A50 extension, even if the EU were prepared to cooperate, which presumably would be dependent on any UK government demonstrating a parliamentary majority prepared to vote for it. IOW, it’s extremely unlikely to happen before March.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
They didn't want an ERG bod in her place. As you yourself have put, faute de mieux.
Or maybe they think that she is now sufficiently weakened that they can push her around more.
Who knows? The Tory party as a whole really is not fit for purpose anymore.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
They didn't want an ERG bod in her place. As you yourself have put, faute de mieux.
Or maybe they think that she is now sufficiently weakened that they can push her around more.
Who knows? The Tory party as a whole really is not fit for purpose anymore.
The problem is moreit doesnt know what purpose that is
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
That is an interesting formulation - and one which arguably conforms with the EU’s terms for an A50 extension.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote in Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
College green, no holds barred, bring your own weapons. Last man standing gets to do Brexit.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
That is an interesting formulation - and one which arguably conforms with the EU’s terms for an A50 extension.
No, it absolutely does not conform, because No Deal is a possible outcome.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and say that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
I think we might end up with something a bit like that, except that the options need to be presented as choices (otherwise nothing gets a majority). I suppose choices versus No Deal (which is the legal default) would do: if parliament does not support any alternative, we leave without a deal.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
That is an interesting formulation - and one which arguably conforms with the EU’s terms for an A50 extension.
It is an inverse question, designed to achieve the 2nd ranked option. How would most answer q1 probably no, but would they risk going to q2 if there least favourite option would the be possible
I see from the EUCO agenda, a whole TEN MINUTES has been allocated to the matter of Mrs May's addendum.
Good to know they're taking her seriously.
There's only so many ways you can say the WA is a legally binding text and you've signed up to it.
Hey, she has been saying the same thing to Labour and the ERG for weeks about the EU not altering it, so she does know that perfectly well. She can try to sell some fluff comments as meaningful, but really what is she supposed to do?
There is a sense in which EUCO communiques are "legally binding". They are legal instruments, and they do establish a policy direction for the Union. Of course the contents of the (draft) communique in no way affects either the words or the spirit of the WA, merely committing the Union to a "best effort" attempt to replace the backstop with something else.
Of course, as far as the EUCO is concerned, that was always the intention anyway, implicit in the WA, so it's hardly a concession for them to commit on a best-effort basis to do what they already thought they had committed to.
So, yes. May will be able to claim if you squint a bit, that she has gained "legally binding assurances" on the backstop, but no, it won't actually change the operation of the Withdrawal Agreement in any way at all.
Also, it's not going to change anyone's mind.
May needs to go nuclear with the ERG: bring up the MV and tell the Parliamentary Tory Party that anyone voting against it loses the whip. Sure, they could then support a Labour VONC and topple the government, but if they are denied the whip, they are barred from standing as Conservative candidates at the subsequent election.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.
Not necessarily - after all, without such a referendum, ‘no deal’ is rather likely anyway.
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and say that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
I think we might end up with something a bit like that, except that the options need to be presented as choices (otherwise nothing gets a majority). I suppose choices versus No Deal (which is the legal default) would do: if parliament does not support any alternative, we leave without a deal.
I think that's almost the only option as it forces MPs to commit to something. Even abstaining is a vote for No Deal were neither option successful...
Although I expect the votes need to be:
May's Deal Revoke A50 then a final "are you really sure it's May's Deal or No Deal on your heads be it."
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
I don't see it. I just don't see it. And neither do I want to since I find the idea wrong in principle and not workable in practice. However, and this is more of a thought experiment than a proposal, I can think of the following imaginary one that I would be in favour of.
A 2 part question is asked:
1. Do you wish to Leave the EU or Remain a member of it?
If you answered Leave please proceed to Q2.
2. Do you wish to Leave the EU with the deal or Remain a member of the EU?
We now interpret the results:
If Q1 delivers a big Remain majority (65%) we revoke art 50 and we stay in, because it is quite obviously a nonsense to press ahead.
If not we look at Q2.
If Q2 tells us that most Leavers (50% or more) prefer to remain than to exit with the deal, we revoke art 50 and stay in, because it is quite obviously a nonsense to press ahead.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.
Not necessarily - after all, without such a referendum, ‘no deal’ is rather likely anyway.
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.
No, think about this: the whole point of the backstop saga has been to offer Ireland a cast iron guarantee of no hard border. Now imagine May asks for a six month A50 extension on a referendum where one of the outcomes is No Deal and a hard border?
Nope, never gonna happen.
The council cannot and will not grant an A50 extension to any referendum that could result in no deal.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU. And yet it is certainly NOT the case that the vast majority wish to remain in it. I wonder how we reconcile this. Is it possible for a person to both dread the prospect of doing something and yet be determined to do it? Well of course it is. Just think about Christmas. Yes, that is a very good example, come to think of it. So is that what Brexit is going to be like? Will leaving the European Union be like Christmas?
So her solution has to be a new referendum, BUT excluding Remain from the ballot paper, i.e. between My Deal or No Deal.
My Deal - TMay's Deal - would win by a mile. Personally I'd rather Remain than endure her awful deal, but the public disagrees with me, and the EU is not going to offer any more.
Once she has secured a result in a referendum, parliament will just have to accept it.
Why would parliament allow her to put a referendum which vastly increases the chances of her deal passing? 1/3 at least of Tories against and virtually no one else. Remain vs deal is stupid, and would be opposed by many Tories, but could tempt Labour?
Well, at least I'm offering possible if difficult solutions. Everyone else on here is just going Oh Woe, Oh Woe and pouring ashes over their heads as they sodomise themselves with the dildo of despair.
Norway+ is actually a great compromise. If only May's obsession with being vindictive towards immigrants hadn't overridden her sense, she could have built a cross-party consensus around Norway+.
Now I sense it's far too late. The deal is done, the EU will rightly point out that three options stand before us, (Remain/May Deal/No Deal) and we should damn well make a decision.
Its too late for 29th March but there is no reason why our trade deal in the longer run might not look like Norway+.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But surely a British PM has embarked on that path. May embarked on that path when she invoked A50. She went further down the path when she got the Withdrawal Act through Parliament. She went even further down that path when she betrayed the DUP. She got dangerously close to the end of the path when she signed off on the backstop before realising the depth of hatred for it in her party.
May has gone a very, very long way down the path.
There was always going to be a deal. So the fact that she went down the path bluffing the whole way is irrelevant. It was always a bluff and we have seen that most clearly with the reversal of the no deal/bad deal mantra.
Now of course the last thing 96.5% of the people thought about when they marked their cross against "Leave" was Northern Ireland but it nevertheless represents (yet) one more example of people deciding not to investigate the implications of their vote. No shame in that, but these are the consequences.
I think we might end up with something a bit like that, except that the options need to be presented as choices (otherwise nothing gets a majority). I suppose choices versus No Deal (which is the legal default) would do: if parliament does not support any alternative, we leave without a deal.
Make em vote endlessly until they pass something :-)
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But surely a British PM has embarked on that path. May embarked on that path when she invoked A50. She went further down the path when she got the Withdrawal Act through Parliament. She went even further down that path when she betrayed the DUP. She got dangerously close to the end of the path when she signed off on the backstop before realising the depth of hatred for it in her party.
May has gone a very, very long way down the path.
There was always going to be a deal. So the fact that she went down the path bluffing the whole way is irrelevant. It was always a bluff and we have seen that most clearly with the reversal of the no deal/bad deal mantra.
Now of course the last thing 96.5% of the people thought about when they marked their cross against "Leave" was Northern Ireland but it nevertheless represents (yet) one more example of people deciding not to investigate the implications of their vote. No shame in that, but these are the consequences.
The EUCO has made clear several times it will countenance an A50 extension for a referendum, provided the referendum's options don't contradict the terms of the negotiated WA.
i.e. the EU will give us time for a referendum as long as "no deal" isn't an option.
And then they wonder why 52% wanted out of their shitty little club....
Since when was being sufficiently popular for the other club members to be keen on keeping you as a member a good reason for resigning? Or, after coming to a provisional arrangement governing what happens after you leave, for crying your eyes out when the remaining members decide they're not much interested in helping you walk away from the arrangement you provisionally agreed just because you've got domestic problems?
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
True, but it probably doesn't make any significant difference to the timeframe. Parliament is not yet ready to face reality.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
“properly”.
Well describe a clean break from the EU that doesn't involve a hard border?
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and say that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
I think we might end up with something a bit like that, except that the options need to be presented as choices (otherwise nothing gets a majority). I suppose choices versus No Deal (which is the legal default) would do: if parliament does not support any alternative, we leave without a deal.
We can't leave "without a deal" nor can "no deal" be offered to anyone. Because whatever happens on 30th March 2019 there will have had to be at least some, if only tiny, perfunctory, or wholly routine conversation and agreement between the EU and the UK. And "no deal" rules that out.
And if you think it doesn't, wait until JRM and Steve Baker get on the case bemoaning the fact that we together with the EU have reached an agreement to allow planes to keep flying.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
“properly”.
Well describe a clean break from the EU that doesn't involve a hard border?
Invading Ireland? I am surprised you have not suggested it....
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
True, but it probably doesn't make any significant difference to the timeframe. Parliament is not yet ready to face reality.
Yes. However, I would argue, it would be closer to so doing having gone through the heavily symbolic, and indeed cathartic, act of handing the Government a hefty defeat.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
Make a few light assumptions: * Those 115 who NC'd May are against the deal. * 20 of the 200 who voted for May are remainers opposed to her deal, but supported her to stop an ERG/Boris leader. * Everyone else will vote no
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
Yeah, that was my suggestion.
Putting the vote off until January is ridiculous. It - and the other options - should be put to the vote now. If nothing gets a majority, revoke Article 50 and take the consequences.
With very few exceptions, pretty much all current MPs need to lose their seats and be replaced by fresh faces and some fresh thinking. Stormont members should have their salaries stopped until they actually do the work they are being paid for. Farage should be put on a one-way ticket to the US to spend more time with the DoJ.
The EUCO has made clear several times it will countenance an A50 extension for a referendum, provided the referendum's options don't contradict the terms of the negotiated WA.
i.e. the EU will give us time for a referendum as long as "no deal" isn't an option.
And then they wonder why 52% wanted out of their shitty little club....
What a silly thing to say. In what negotiation is one side going to grant more time solely so that the other side is better prepared to walk away without a deal?
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.
Not necessarily - after all, without such a referendum, ‘no deal’ is rather likely anyway.
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.
No, think about this: the whole point of the backstop saga has been to offer Ireland a cast iron guarantee of no hard border. Now imagine May asks for a six month A50 extension on a referendum where one of the outcomes is No Deal and a hard border?
Nope, never gonna happen.
The council cannot and will not grant an A50 extension to any referendum that could result in no deal.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
True, but it probably doesn't make any significant difference to the timeframe. Parliament is not yet ready to face reality.
I don't think I've ever experienced a bona fide constitutional crisis in my lifetime before. It's going to be fascinating beyond belief.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and say that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
I think we might end up with something a bit like that, except that the options need to be presented as choices (otherwise nothing gets a majority). I suppose choices versus No Deal (which is the legal default) would do: if parliament does not support any alternative, we leave without a deal.
We can't leave "without a deal" nor can "no deal" be offered to anyone. Because whatever happens on 30th March 2019 there will have had to be at least some, if only tiny, perfunctory, or wholly routing conversation and agreement between the EU and the UK. And "no deal" rules that out.
And if you think it doesn't, wait until JRM and Steve Baker get on the case bemoaning the fact that we together with the EU have reached an agreement to allow planes to keep flying.
Of course, but I'm not proposing it as an option, I'm proposing it as a means of focusing the attention of parliament on the reality that avoiding No Deal (as all the opposition parties insist we must, along with the sane part of the Conservative Party) can only be done by actively choosing something else - and something which is attainable. The EU's existing deal, perhaps.
So the evidence is that (by miles) most people (i) hate the deal and (ii) think that no other PM could have got a better one. This is quite an interesting mindset. Put that together, divide both sides by a constant, integrate and then differentiate back up to where we came from and what do we get? That the vast majority of people hate the prospect of leaving the EU.
One thing about May, she takes the fact that the leave vote had a whole bunch of non GE voters encased within incredibly incredibly seriously.
So what? GE 1992 turnout was higher still. The winner was a Tory PM who wanted to be 'at the heart of Europe' in contrast to his successors and now wants us to confirm in a vote whether we support this lousy deal or the excellent deal (with four opt-outs) we already have.
Then find out whether people were voting against the EU or against Whitehall. If ten million voters were actually complaining at what Whitehall had done to their lives, ask what to do about lack of confidence in our own pathetic FPTP government which since 1979 has mostly operated for the few and not the many - a.k.a. Thatcher & Sons.
Total EU spending is about 1% of total EU mermber states' GDP. It actually does a lot for rather limited amounts of money, because member states don't then have to do the same thing 28 times. This point never gets publicised even by pro-EU papers. I wonder why ...
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.
No, think about this: the whole point of the backstop saga has been to offer Ireland a cast iron guarantee of no hard border. Now imagine May asks for a six month A50 extension on a referendum where one of the outcomes is No Deal and a hard border?
Nope, never gonna happen.
The council cannot and will not grant an A50 extension to any referendum that could result in no deal.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
She'd need an A50 extension for that, and as long as "no deal" was on there, the Council would categorically refuse.
Not necessarily - after all, without such a referendum, ‘no deal’ is rather likely anyway.
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.
No, think about this: the whole point of the backstop saga has been to offer Ireland a cast iron guarantee of no hard border. Now imagine May asks for a six month A50 extension on a referendum where one of the outcomes is No Deal and a hard border?
Nope, never gonna happen.
The council cannot and will not grant an A50 extension to any referendum that could result in no deal.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
May’s Deal is much better than that. I’d rather stay in the EU than have Norway+ and I don’t know why some Leavers are saying the precise opposite.
I can only presume they don’t understand May’s deal.
In practice May's deal leads to something indistinguishable from Norway Plus anyway given the short negotiating timescales and the need to supersede the backstop.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
True, but it probably doesn't make any significant difference to the timeframe. Parliament is not yet ready to face reality.
I don't think I've ever experienced a bona fide constitutional crisis in my lifetime before. It's going to be fascinating beyond belief.
And terrifying.
Yeah, a bit like watching a live blog of the fall of France, 1940.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
True, but it probably doesn't make any significant difference to the timeframe. Parliament is not yet ready to face reality.
I don't think I've ever experienced a bona fide constitutional crisis in my lifetime before. It's going to be fascinating beyond belief.
And terrifying.
Didn't Harry & Meghan taking their shoes off on a beach count as a constitutional crisis?
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
Not if no deal was a possible outcome. That would just allow the UK to waste six more months before crashing out with no deal. It's unconscionable to expect the Council (especially Ireland) to agree to that.
How close do we have to get to the cliff edge before the Government seriously considers declaring a state of emergency and handling Brexit via the organs and procedures of the Civil Contingencies Act?
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
“properly”.
Well describe a clean break from the EU that doesn't involve a hard border?
Theresa May’s Deal is Brexit. The EEA would be Brexit.
You don’t get to define Brexit. And you don’t get to assert that your mad priorities somehow have a mandate when they do not.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
Which was why what we desperately needed was a vote on the deal on Tuesday. To remove one option. Instead we had a Tory Party vote, which left us with the status quo ante. Ironically, had the deal been heavily defeated, as it surely would have, Mrs May would most likely still have faced that vote, with a similar result. But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed. So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
True, but it probably doesn't make any significant difference to the timeframe. Parliament is not yet ready to face reality.
I don't think I've ever experienced a bona fide constitutional crisis in my lifetime before. It's going to be fascinating beyond belief.
And terrifying.
Didn't Harry & Meghan taking their shoes off on a beach count as a constitutional crisis?
There was that time Prince ***REDACTED*** arranged for Princess ***REDACTED*** to have a fatal ***REDACTED***.
I'm starting to think the ERG have played a blinder. The worst two scenarios for them would be:
A moderate is elected PM who somehow gets Theresa's Deal+ through parliament on the back of his honeymoon.
An ERG-ite is elected PM who will then have to take full responsibility for the ensuing No Deal fallout.
No, better to keep a crushed and humiliated Theresa in place, so they can engineer the No Deal they crave, but then blame her for the societal and economic collapse that follows.
I think Mrs May played a blinder.
The ERG were blackmailing her to keep her hard by the threat of a VONC. They didn't want to actually execute it. Far better to keep it hanging over her head.
But the result of the VONC has greatly strengthened Mrs May's hand. ERG can't lay a finger on her now. It has opened up her options.
As she has benefited and the ERG have lost leverage, you have to ask who triggered the vote?
Was it an accident by the ERG or was it friends of Mrs May who pushed it over the 48?
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
Comments
And as the recipient of that message - a reasonably capable bloke in my 40s - it comes across as EXTREMELY rude.
Given the only other options seem to be 'We do nothing until March' it has to be worth a try.
On the less probable sclae perhaps the Mays and Corbyns should have a Christmas meal together to try to work something out.
https://tinyurl.com/y8urbhxu
It has to be Romano Fenati for me.
Is it the Miller case ?
The chances of engineering any such second referendum aren’t terrifically high, though.
The Parluamentary arithmetic could not have been better designed to create deadlock, had Mandleson and Osborne sat down together with the late Walter Harrison to design it.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
http://motogpnews.com/2018/09/11/road-rash-romano-puts-brakes-on-his-own-career/
Ian Paisley jnr is in trouble again.
Now I sense it's far too late. The deal is done, the EU will rightly point out that three options stand before us, (Remain/May Deal/No Deal) and we should damn well make a decision.
In the cold light of day, that might well be the conclusion a significant number of them reach. But such is the internal Tory loathing of ERG many would rather saddle themselves with a loser for at least 12 more months (and perhaps 24 plus) than admit that Boris and Rees-Mogg might just have a point.
It would be hilarious if we have an early election where a chunk of them lose their seats as she goes for the UnHoly Trinity of Fuck-Ups: 2017 GE, Brexit negotiations and 2019 GE. In a gallows humour kind of hilarious.
Perhaps the Gov't won't ask for confidential legal opinion on controversial matters due to Starmer's penchant for theatrics in the chamber though. If there is no controverial legal opinion, there is no humble address mechanism to try and embarass the Gov't into revealing it
May has gone a very, very long way down the path.
Caveat 2: Legal is a whole different ball-game to political. However, your point was a legal one.
Legally, it seems the effects of the Act can be can-kicked indefinitely by Steve Barclay's signature on a bit of paper. And the restrictions on the Executive's treaty-signing powers all seem to be about concluding a Withdrawal Act (ie I can't find mention of revoking A50 in the Act)
(2)In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.
(3)Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).
****(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom,****
I'm pretty convinced TMay (or Corbyn, actually) wouldn't do this politically. But if Remainers did stage a parliamentary coup, I'm not sure there'd be a legal impediment up until *however long it takes Downing Street's printer to power-up* before 11pm on 29/3.
(And it wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg!)
Wanting to leave a room is easy. But if you don't know what a "key", "lock", "doorhandle" is then it's a real problem. I bang on about the Conservative Party's inability to understand Ireland quite a lot, but it's not limited to them by any stretch. And Ireland's quite close and mostly harmless. How the hell they are going to cope with, say, China, is beyond me.
A moderate is elected PM who somehow gets Theresa's Deal+ through parliament on the back of his honeymoon.
An ERG-ite is elected PM who will then have to take full responsibility for the ensuing No Deal fallout.
No, better to keep a crushed and humiliated Theresa in place, so they can engineer the No Deal they crave, but then blame her for the societal and economic collapse that follows.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
IOW, it’s extremely unlikely to happen before March.
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No
Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
After reading that article I might try and get on the Japanese basketball team.
Or maybe they think that she is now sufficiently weakened that they can push her around more.
Who knows? The Tory party as a whole really is not fit for purpose anymore.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
They key is that the first vote would be on approval of the agreed WA terms - and if that’s rejected, it’s already a choice between remain and no deal. At least the public could then make the decision rather than it happening, as now, by default.
Although I expect the votes need to be:
May's Deal
Revoke A50
then a final "are you really sure it's May's Deal or No Deal on your heads be it."
I don't see it. I just don't see it. And neither do I want to since I find the idea wrong in principle and not workable in practice. However, and this is more of a thought experiment than a proposal, I can think of the following imaginary one that I would be in favour of.
A 2 part question is asked:
1. Do you wish to Leave the EU or Remain a member of it?
If you answered Leave please proceed to Q2.
2. Do you wish to Leave the EU with the deal or Remain a member of the EU?
We now interpret the results:
If Q1 delivers a big Remain majority (65%) we revoke art 50 and we stay in, because it is quite obviously a nonsense to press ahead.
If not we look at Q2.
If Q2 tells us that most Leavers (50% or more) prefer to remain than to exit with the deal, we revoke art 50 and stay in, because it is quite obviously a nonsense to press ahead.
I like that. I think it ticks all the boxes.
Nope, never gonna happen.
The council cannot and will not grant an A50 extension to any referendum that could result in no deal.
Now of course the last thing 96.5% of the people thought about when they marked their cross against "Leave" was Northern Ireland but it nevertheless represents (yet) one more example of people deciding not to investigate the implications of their vote. No shame in that, but these are the consequences.
But. She would then have done exactly the same rounds of Europe, searching for a solution, but with arguably slightly more leverage of a known figure of converts needed.
So. We are exactly where we were Monday. Just with decisions punted forward to January.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
And if you think it doesn't, wait until JRM and Steve Baker get on the case bemoaning the fact that we together with the EU have reached an agreement to allow planes to keep flying.
* Those 115 who NC'd May are against the deal.
* 20 of the 200 who voted for May are remainers opposed to her deal, but supported her to stop an ERG/Boris leader.
* Everyone else will vote no
Ayes: 180
Noes: 470
No majority of 290.
Putting the vote off until January is ridiculous. It - and the other options - should be put to the vote now. If nothing gets a majority, revoke Article 50 and take the consequences.
With very few exceptions, pretty much all current MPs need to lose their seats and be replaced by fresh faces and some fresh thinking. Stormont members should have their salaries stopped until they actually do the work they are being paid for. Farage should be put on a one-way ticket to the US to spend more time with the DoJ.
May’s Deal is much better than that. I’d rather stay in the EU than have Norway+ and I don’t know why some Leavers are saying the precise opposite.
I can only presume they don’t understand May’s deal.
And terrifying.
I of course mean *those* leavers. Not you, obvs. You are one of the enlightened ones.
Then find out whether people were voting against the EU or against Whitehall. If ten million voters were actually complaining at what Whitehall had done to their lives, ask what to do about lack of confidence in our own pathetic FPTP government which since 1979 has mostly operated for the few and not the many - a.k.a. Thatcher & Sons.
Total EU spending is about 1% of total EU mermber states' GDP. It actually does a lot for rather limited amounts of money, because member states don't then have to do the same thing 28 times. This point never gets publicised even by pro-EU papers. I wonder why ...
How close do we have to get to the cliff edge before the Government seriously considers declaring a state of emergency and handling Brexit via the organs and procedures of the Civil Contingencies Act?
You don’t get to define Brexit. And you don’t get to assert that your mad priorities somehow have a mandate when they do not.
The ERG were blackmailing her to keep her hard by the threat of a VONC. They didn't want to actually execute it. Far better to keep it hanging over her head.
But the result of the VONC has greatly strengthened Mrs May's hand. ERG can't lay a finger on her now. It has opened up her options.
As she has benefited and the ERG have lost leverage, you have to ask who triggered the vote?
Was it an accident by the ERG or was it friends of Mrs May who pushed it over the 48?
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.