To my mind the likeliest outcome is that May's deal will eventually pass, perhaps by means of a Labour abstention.
The only real reason for Labour not to support it is the desire to inflict as much damage on the government as possible. After three more months of this, the government may well be damaged beyond repair anyway, and if the passage of the deal also loses it the support of the DUP, so much the better for Labour.
Would Labour really want to go further, and inflict a disastrous outcome on the country, and - perhaps more to the point as far as cynics are concerned - take their share of the blame for that outcome in the eyes of the electorate?
And after all, as May's deal is largely a matter of postponing the substantive decisions about the future, if Labour did win an election in the aftermath, they would be in a position to make the real deal on their own terms after that.
The ECJ case changed everything and yet some seem intent on peddling the fantasy that no deal is a default .
It is not a fantasy. It is encoded in law.
You’re talking as if it’s set in stone ! All laws can be changed and you are aware the executive can change exit day with a mere stroke of the pen. Good old Henry Vlll powers . The Gina Miller case only deals with the removal of rights without parliamentary approval that’s why Article 50 needed their consent . If rights aren’t changed as in the status quo remains May can revoke the Article without needing MPs , she can also seek an extension or change exit day because rights aren’t abrogated !
Abrogated rights is basically the Gina Miller case in a nutshell .
No, May cannot prevent the 2017 Act from coming into force. It does require another statute to prevent it from taking effect.
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day . This would be inline with Article 50 and it’s mention of constitutional procedures of the UK.
The key thing is Henry Vlll powers allow this , the Gina Miller case is about removal of rights without parliamentary approval not the maintenance of same rights .
The Supreme Court dealt with abrogation of rights , there is no abrogation if the same rights are maintained .
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Impressively awful ratings for EVERYONE in the latest YouGov. Who do you like? May? Corbyn? Cable? Johnson? Tories? Labour? LibDems? UKIP? The slow race is won by Labour, which just manages to get to 30% who like us. Everyone else is either worse or much worse.
It reminds me of those US surveys which regularly show huge majorities for "Congress is doing a bad job", which when elections come round don't seem to depress turnout or produce amazingly different results.
Depressingly not QUITE as bad for Boris as one would have expected
Impressively awful ratings for EVERYONE in the latest YouGov. Who do you like? May? Corbyn? Cable? Johnson? Tories? Labour? LibDems? UKIP? The slow race is won by Labour, which just manages to get to 30% who like us. Everyone else is either worse or much worse.
It reminds me of those US surveys which regularly show huge majorities for "Congress is doing a bad job", which when elections come round don't seem to depress turnout or produce amazingly different results.
"Don't Know" has regularly been leading or just slightly trailing May for Best PM (with Corbyn consistently trailing in third place). Since in part DK on this question is probably a good proxy for "Neither" there's an opportunity for the first party to replace its leader with someone better (if there's someone better to be had...)
Joanna Lumley would be good. I seem to remember she was a supporter of the Greens at some point?
May has until the end of January - pass her deal or she'll be escorted out of no 10.
Indeed. And it only passes with Labour support. Ditto if she is replaced. The WA cannot pass without Labour support. And the WA must pass or else it's article 50 extension and a referendum. But no referendum possible with a tory PM. Hence the WA must pass with Labour support. Which they give in return for the promise of a 2019 GE post 29 March. That is what I foresee. Not quite predict, only a fool would predict, but foresee.
My prediction - May fails.
A cleanskin is PM.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Yeah, sorry... but you know what I mean. The Bill Cash hardliners were agitating, Carswell and Reckless went to UKIP. It would've been extraordinarily difficult for Cameron to hold them off without losing the Tories the election.
The ECJ case changed everything and yet some seem intent on peddling the fantasy that no deal is a default .
It is not a fantasy. It is encoded in law.
You’re talking as if it’s set in stone ! All laws can be changed and you are aware the executive can change exit day with a mere stroke of the pen. Good old Henry Vlll powers . The Gina Miller case only deals with the removal of rights without parliamentary approval that’s why Article 50 needed their consent . If rights aren’t changed as in the status quo remains May can revoke the Article without needing MPs , she can also seek an extension or change exit day because rights aren’t abrogated !
Abrogated rights is basically the Gina Miller case in a nutshell .
No, May cannot prevent the 2017 Act from coming into force. It does require another statute to prevent it from taking effect.
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day .
But, I think, only in line with an A50 extension (EUWA s20(4)).
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Perhaps formally but “the bastards” were always there. A lot of crossover to the freak show that did their best to destroy the Major administration. Wilfully destructive with nothing positive to say and skilled only at responsibility avoidance.
She can then amend the exit day in the WA for 2200 indeed any date she likes past March 29 2019 ! MPs at a later date could just remove the WA from law and that’s it job done !
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day .
I'm not sure amending it "until the end of time, when the universe has imploded into a ball the size of Donald Trump's humility" really fits the spirit of the legislation.
To my mind the likeliest outcome is that May's deal will eventually pass, perhaps by means of a Labour abstention.
The only real reason for Labour not to support it is the desire to inflict as much damage on the government as possible. After three more months of this, the government may well be damaged beyond repair anyway, and if the passage of the deal also loses it the support of the DUP, so much the better for Labour.
Would Labour really want to go further, and inflict a disastrous outcome on the country, and - perhaps more to the point as far as cynics are concerned - take their share of the blame for that outcome in the eyes of the electorate?
And after all, as May's deal is largely a matter of postponing the substantive decisions about the future, if Labour did win an election in the aftermath, they would be in a position to make the real deal on their own terms after that.
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky. If as you suggest they end up allowing the EU's deal through, they will get blamed by pro-Remain supporters for not stopping Brexit. Ditto if they somehow collude with the ERG loons in No Deal, with the added kick of the resulting job losses and disruption.
Therefore I think that the Labour line will become 'We wanted to respect the 2016 referendum result, but we weren't in charge and the Tories have screwed up so badly that we need to find a way out.'. They will do very well indeed with that message, and Corbyn will go along with it (even if he'd actually prefer to leave) because it's the inevitable endpoint of both the parliamentary and Labour support numbers. They can present a credibly united front with such a message, and get political cover for it by supporting a Revoke/Deal referendum.
Meanwhile the Tories will be engaged in a bitter civil war. What's not to like, from Labour's point of view?
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Perhaps formally but “the bastards” were always there. A lot of crossover to the freak show that did their best to destroy the Major administration. Wilfully destructive with nothing positive to say and skilled only at responsibility avoidance.
IDS is the remarkable one. He went from idiot rebel to idiot leader and now he is back as a rebel he appears to have learned absolutely nothing from his journey.
To my mind the likeliest outcome is that May's deal will eventually pass, perhaps by means of a Labour abstention.
The only real reason for Labour not to support it is the desire to inflict as much damage on the government as possible. After three more months of this, the government may well be damaged beyond repair anyway, and if the passage of the deal also loses it the support of the DUP, so much the better for Labour.
Would Labour really want to go further, and inflict a disastrous outcome on the country, and - perhaps more to the point as far as cynics are concerned - take their share of the blame for that outcome in the eyes of the electorate?
And after all, as May's deal is largely a matter of postponing the substantive decisions about the future, if Labour did win an election in the aftermath, they would be in a position to make the real deal on their own terms after that.
Yes I have this as the likeliest outcome too.
The WA passes with Labour support and the price of that support is the promise of a General Election in 2019 after we have left.
It could be presented as both acting in the national interest and also in compliance with their Brexit policy, which is respect the referendum result but negotiate an FTA that is very close to Remain. The WA is compatible with that.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Yeah, sorry... but you know what I mean. The Bill Cash hardliners were agitating, Carswell and Reckless went to UKIP. It would've been extraordinarily difficult for Cameron to hold them off without losing the Tories the election.
I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure you know what I mean.
My point is that when this is discussed the cause and effect is usually portrayed the wrong way round. The Cash hardliners were agitating because the Tories were already losing votes.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Perhaps formally but “the bastards” were always there. A lot of crossover to the freak show that did their best to destroy the Major administration. Wilfully destructive with nothing positive to say and skilled only at responsibility avoidance.
IDS is the remarkable one. He went from idiot rebel to idiot leader and now he is back as a rebel he appears to have learned absolutely nothing from his journey.
If you’re stupid it’s easy to lack self-doubt and self-awareness.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Perhaps formally but “the bastards” were always there. A lot of crossover to the freak show that did their best to destroy the Major administration. Wilfully destructive with nothing positive to say and skilled only at responsibility avoidance.
IDS is the remarkable one. He went from idiot rebel to idiot leader and now he is back as a rebel he appears to have learned absolutely nothing from his journey.
A latter day Bourbon, he has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Maybe he will also end up in the tumbrils as the revolution destroys its own?
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Perhaps formally but “the bastards” were always there. A lot of crossover to the freak show that did their best to destroy the Major administration. Wilfully destructive with nothing positive to say and skilled only at responsibility avoidance.
IDS is the remarkable one. He went from idiot rebel to idiot leader and now he is back as a rebel he appears to have learned absolutely nothing from his journey.
I think he feels vindicated by 2016 and doesn't want to see it be thrown away.
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day .
I'm not sure amending it "until the end of time, when the universe has imploded into a ball the size of Donald Trump's humility" really fits the spirit of the legislation.
It doesn’t , but the subsection in the WA has no time limit on amending that . Politically of course it’s the nuclear option .
The more likely outcome is May resigns if her deal is voted down and David Liddington or Hammond get an extension .
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
It's enough to make you weep.
And what did Gordon Brown say when The Treasury told him how great everything was? Something like 'What do you want me to do, send a fucking thank you note?'.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Indeed a lot of the problems we are having now step from the lack of definition of what voting to leave would mean in practice. Cameron’s biggest failure was not to have a Royal Commission or other mechanism to produce a single version of Leave, with the referendum taking place afterwards.
Plenty of people managed to project their own views onto Brexit, from Farage and UKIP to Dan Hannan and the Conservative MEPs. The free market IEA think tank published a number of papers on how leaving the EU would work in practice, and held a competition resulting in hundreds of entries with a winner and five runners up awarded prizes. https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-prize-final-shortlisted-entries
If we had had a single Brexit option to vote for, we really wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky. If as you suggest they end up allowing the EU's deal through, they will get blamed by pro-Remain supporters for not stopping Brexit.
Obviously, I am not a Labour whip (or AM I?) but I really really cannot imagine how Labour could seriously expect to hold the line on an abstention.
It's simply not within the soul of Labour MPs to even consider throwing lifelines to Tory PMs in trouble.
To my mind the likeliest outcome is that May's deal will eventually pass, perhaps by means of a Labour abstention.
The only real reason for Labour not to support it is the desire to inflict as much damage on the government as possible. After three more months of this, the government may well be damaged beyond repair anyway, and if the passage of the deal also loses it the support of the DUP, so much the better for Labour.
Would Labour really want to go further, and inflict a disastrous outcome on the country, and - perhaps more to the point as far as cynics are concerned - take their share of the blame for that outcome in the eyes of the electorate?
And after all, as May's deal is largely a matter of postponing the substantive decisions about the future, if Labour did win an election in the aftermath, they would be in a position to make the real deal on their own terms after that.
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky.
I think for a while they've got the luxury of playing politics without calamitous consequences (though no doubt the uncertainty is doing damage to the economy).
But as the deadline gets closer, one would hope the real-world consequences will start to weigh more heavily in the balance.
We need pressure on Labour to abstain to allow pasage of the deal, that is least damaging and possibly acievable option.
"Hello, I'm Jeremy Corbyn, and I'm so pathetically indecisive that I sat on my hands during possibly the most important Parliamentary vote in modern British history.
What a great Prime Minister I would make! Vote Labour."
It's theoretically doable, but it's not a good look, now is it?
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky. If as you suggest they end up allowing the EU's deal through, they will get blamed by pro-Remain supporters for not stopping Brexit.
Obviously, I am not a Labour whip (or AM I?) but I really really cannot imagine how Labour could seriously expect to hold the line on an abstention.
It's simply not within the soul of Labour MPs to even consider throwing lifelines to Tory PMs in trouble.
One benefit is that it could keep the abject May in no 10 - which benefits Labour as all alternatives bar Rudd and Hammond are better.
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day .
I'm not sure amending it "until the end of time, when the universe has imploded into a ball the size of Donald Trump's humility" really fits the spirit of the legislation.
It doesn’t , but the subsection in the WA has no time limit on amending that . Politically of course it’s the nuclear option .
The more likely outcome is May resigns if her deal is voted down and David Liddington or Hammond get an extension .
(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
That's to allow for a different exit day to be agreed in the negotiations (either by an A50 extension or otherwise), not to allow for revocation.
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky. If as you suggest they end up allowing the EU's deal through, they will get blamed by pro-Remain supporters for not stopping Brexit.
Obviously, I am not a Labour whip (or AM I?) but I really really cannot imagine how Labour could seriously expect to hold the line on an abstention.
It's simply not within the soul of Labour MPs to even consider throwing lifelines to Tory PMs in trouble.
I think if the deal had been supported by the Brexiteers and the DUP, with just a few rebels, then some Labour MPs might have taken the view that they should enable it to go through, in order to avoid No Deal and to respect the referendum result. But with the ERG trashing the deal anyway, that no longer applies.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Indeed a lot of the problems we are having now step from the lack of definition of what voting to leave would mean in practice. Cameron’s biggest failure was not to have a Royal Commission or other mechanism to produce a single version of Leave, with the referendum taking place afterwards.
Plenty of people managed to project their own views onto Brexit, from Farage and UKIP to Dan Hannan and the Conservative MEPs. The free market IEA think tank published a number of papers on how leaving the EU would work in practice, and held a competition resulting in hundreds of entries with a winner and five runners up awarded prizes. https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-prize-final-shortlisted-entries
If we had had a single Brexit option to vote for, we really wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
Not least because Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Which is why Cameron didn't do it.
He didn't want to settle the issue, he wanted to win a referendum. A disgraceful dereliction of duty.
I agree with Richard that Labour will come out supporting a referendum as the only logical way to avoid making a decision. As all decisions are bad this is a fair strategy.
The pound has yet to take on the full impact of a hard Brexit. If it does we can see the pound drop below one euro. That will put added pressure on the Government. This is a black swan event and if you read the Big Short you will understand that markets tend not to believe in black swans. When they do appear the impact is fast and dramatic.
We like many other manufacturing businesses are sanguine. As we earn a lot of overseas currency we will win from a big drop in the pound but much of this money we will need to use getting access to markets and giving pay rises to key staff.
As I have said before the more you rely on the UK and especially the UK Government for your income the worst you will find 2019.
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky. If as you suggest they end up allowing the EU's deal through, they will get blamed by pro-Remain supporters for not stopping Brexit.
Obviously, I am not a Labour whip (or AM I?) but I really really cannot imagine how Labour could seriously expect to hold the line on an abstention.
It's simply not within the soul of Labour MPs to even consider throwing lifelines to Tory PMs in trouble.
I don't think the numbers would require it to be watertight by any means.
But mostly, I suspect that by the time we get to March it might not look so much like throwing a lifeline, and more like assisting a suicide.
"Having correctly ruled out a second referendum and a General Election, and with no chance of passing her own deal through Parliament, the Prime Minister is left with only one option for which she and the Government should now robustly prepare: a World Trade deal, from March 29, 2019.
Far from the panto-dramatics language of no deals and cliff edges used by the anti-Brexit gang, a World Trade deal simply means we will continue to trade with the EU and like most other countries around the world, we will do so under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. "
May has until the end of January - pass her deal or she'll be escorted out of no 10.
Indeed. And it only passes with Labour support. Ditto if she is replaced. The WA cannot pass without Labour support. And the WA must pass or else it's article 50 extension and a referendum. But no referendum possible with a tory PM. Hence the WA must pass with Labour support. Which they give in return for the promise of a 2019 GE post 29 March. That is what I foresee. Not quite predict, only a fool would predict, but foresee.
My prediction - May fails.
A cleanskin is PM.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
That’s increasingly looking like the most likely outcome.
It’s possible that a week or two of disruption to trade is unfortunately going to be required to bang heads together around the negotiating table.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Tusk says the January summit May wants probably won't happen.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073605119533551621
That would appear to be that.
Indeed. I agree with Tusk. There appears to be nothing further to talk about. Mrs May needs to stay here and sort out her Brexit.
Interested to get your thoughts. As a vocal critic of May's handling of Brexit but also the ERG, do you think we should have spent the last two years (and should now spend what time is available) in preparing for no deal, not as a desirable outcome, but as a real risk?
People need to bear in mind let’s say the government went for no deal, legislation has to be passed for that . It’s not simply the case nothing happens until Brexit day and MPs just sit there.
"Having correctly ruled out a second referendum and a General Election, and with no chance of passing her own deal through Parliament, the Prime Minister is left with only one option for which she and the Government should now robustly prepare: a World Trade deal, from March 29, 2019.
Far from the panto-dramatics language of no deals and cliff edges used by the anti-Brexit gang, a World Trade deal simply means we will continue to trade with the EU and like most other countries around the world, we will do so under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. "
People need to bear in mind let’s say the government went for no deal, legislation has to be passed for that . It’s not simply the case nothing happens until Brexit day and MPs just sit there.
That legislation can be amended.
They don't have to. It'd be mad not to, but it's not required.
Surely one problem for those wanting to force change this way is that the markets have already priced in the risk of this deal being rejected and a possible hard Brexit. Plus the markets will continue to dribble in that direction rather than having a single shocking move.
Once we have the certainty of No Deal the markets might even recover somewhat.
10/10 for fantasy world.
No deal could create a mighty crash, but the fundamentals are there along with pent up demand. A bounce back is not unlikely at all.
Just look at what happened after we left the ERM in 1992.
It’s quite possible that, following a brief period of adjustment and with the right government in place, no-deal Brexit could be the firing of the starting gun on a decade of economic growth. The EU are absolutely terrified of that happening.
It could be.
But the UK economy in 1992 was fundamentally healthy, and had just gone through a nice cleansing recession. The savings rate was at a fifty year high and had room to come down. The UK was still a large net creditor to the world, and it was us who - net - received dividend, rent and interest payments. And consumer debt was a fraction of current levels.
The New Labour years, and in particular the period from about 2001 on, saw the UK spend through an incredible inheritance.
The UK economy is one of the most unbalanced in the world. Who's really to blame for this? Mostly New Labour from 2001 on. But who will actually be blamed when the UK goes through the inevitable adjustments?
It's enough to make you weep.
And what did Gordon Brown say when The Treasury told him how great everything was? Something like 'What do you want me to do, send a fucking thank you note?'.
If he did say that he managed to simultaneously be out of character and to somehow escape the notice of Google.
May has until the end of January - pass her deal or she'll be escorted out of no 10.
Indeed. And it only passes with Labour support. Ditto if she is replaced. The WA cannot pass without Labour support. And the WA must pass or else it's article 50 extension and a referendum. But no referendum possible with a tory PM. Hence the WA must pass with Labour support. Which they give in return for the promise of a 2019 GE post 29 March. That is what I foresee. Not quite predict, only a fool would predict, but foresee.
My prediction - May fails.
A cleanskin is PM.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
That’s increasingly looking like the most likely outcome.
It’s possible that a week or two of disruption to trade is unfortunately going to be required to bang heads together around the negotiating table.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
How lucky to be in Dubai after advocating Brexit. Still, if it’s the elderly Brexiteers that suffer, karma I suppose.
"Having correctly ruled out a second referendum and a General Election, and with no chance of passing her own deal through Parliament, the Prime Minister is left with only one option for which she and the Government should now robustly prepare: a World Trade deal, from March 29, 2019.
Far from the panto-dramatics language of no deals and cliff edges used by the anti-Brexit gang, a World Trade deal simply means we will continue to trade with the EU and like most other countries around the world, we will do so under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. "
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals to shade the 2015 GE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Indeed a lot of the problems we are having now step from the lack of definition of what voting to leave would mean in practice. Cameron’s biggest failure was not to have a Royal Commission or other mechanism to produce a single version of Leave, with the referendum taking place afterwards.
Plenty of people managed to project their own views onto Brexit, from Farage and UKIP to Dan Hannan and the Conservative MEPs. The free market IEA think tank published a number of papers on how leaving the EU would work in practice, and held a competition resulting in hundreds of entries with a winner and five runners up awarded prizes. https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-prize-final-shortlisted-entries
If we had had a single Brexit option to vote for, we really wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
Not least because Leave would have won by a bigger margin.
Which is why Cameron didn't do it.
He didn't want to settle the issue, he wanted to win a referendum. A disgraceful dereliction of duty.
Yes, I think his arrogance caught up with him, especially in the aftermath of the Scotland referendum win in 2014.
The mistakes were the lack of a specific leave option and the totally negative remain campaign - he just didn’t think we’d collectively vote to give politicians a metaphorical punch on the nose.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
Ah ok. But the opening assertion for the model was that we will not under any circumstances risk leaving on 29 March without a deal which gives a transition, i.e. the WA.
Obviously if that is not true then it opens up other outcomes including yours.
But if that is correct (and I think it is) and if it is also correct to discount a referendum (and I really can't see it) then the model does point very strongly to the one conclusion - Labour allow the WA to pass and in return get the promise of a GE in say May 2019.
People need to bear in mind let’s say the government went for no deal, legislation has to be passed for that .
Clearly false.
It's possible that actions the government wants to take might need legislation but leaving the EU without a negotiated WA itself has already been sufficiently authorised by parliament.
May has until the end of January - pass her deal or she'll be escorted out of no 10.
Indeed. And it only passes with Labour support. Ditto if she is replaced. The WA cannot pass without Labour support. And the WA must pass or else it's article 50 extension and a referendum. But no referendum possible with a tory PM. Hence the WA must pass with Labour support. Which they give in return for the promise of a 2019 GE post 29 March. That is what I foresee. Not quite predict, only a fool would predict, but foresee.
My prediction - May fails.
A cleanskin is PM.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
That’s increasingly looking like the most likely outcome.
It’s possible that a week or two of disruption to trade is unfortunately going to be required to bang heads together around the negotiating table.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
How lucky to be in Dubai after advocating Brexit. Still, if it’s the elderly Brexiteers that suffer, karma I suppose.
I’ll be spending my hard earned Dirhams in Britain over Christmas. At $1.24/£ I’ll probably be spending a few quid more than I was planning to, so doing my bit for the U.K. economy.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
Chances of that happening and still being unresolved by August is less than the chances of me dying in a RTC before then.
Of course if we leave in March without May's deal, some interim arrangements and the world doesn't end - the cult of Remainerism is dead forever.
What about the EU charges a levy of 100 euros a year for visas to those over 25 from the UK?
It shouldn't bother the Remainers or business people.
It could be used to make up the shortfall caused by the British exit.
It might persuade more Leavers to take their holidays in Turkey where they'll discover nice people.
Those that still don't fancy the Turks can holiday in Grimsby......
Not many downsides really.
Please don't encourage more people to go to Turkey - there are already 2 many annoying Brits there (although personally I blame the all inclusive hotels)..
I think those gunning for Trump have to be a bit careful. If after building up all the massive Russian collusion angle, the only thing they get Trump on is ordering somebody to hush up him bonking a porn star, I think it will allow Trump to do his Fake News / Bias media / Deep state routine.
That been said Mueller appears to be working his way through this and so far anybody who has got caught in his tractor beam ends up getting taken down. Although, again so far a lot of it revolves around greed of trying to avoid paying their taxes.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I too have an American trip planned next year but am confident the Clear Skies agreement won't be a problem.
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day .
I'm not sure amending it "until the end of time, when the universe has imploded into a ball the size of Donald Trump's humility" really fits the spirit of the legislation.
It doesn’t , but the subsection in the WA has no time limit on amending that . Politically of course it’s the nuclear option .
The more likely outcome is May resigns if her deal is voted down and David Liddington or Hammond get an extension .
(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
That's to allow for a different exit day to be agreed in the negotiations (either by an A50 extension or otherwise), not to allow for revocation.
It’s irrelevant the WA doesn’t specify any linkage between subsection 4 and Article 50 . The politics is one thing but legally the WA and Article 50 are separate entities .
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I think that's already been signed with the US.
Though, if the UK crashes out of the EU, airlines won't be able to travel through UK airspace to get to the US, and vice versa. The clear skies agreements are co-dependent. If the UK no-deals it will ground transatlantic routes from the US to the EU that go through UK airspace.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
I will always have sympathy for Cameron because the ERG are a pain in the arse and the 2012-2015 period looked extremely precarious for the Tories with UKIP seemingly on the march. Offering a referendum and campaigning to stay in the EU was his only option from a Tory point of view. If he hadn't done it then UKIP would've stolen his right flank and Labour would've likely won enough marginals toE.
With hindsight, the best thing (from a centre-ground Tory point of view) that could've happened was for the Lib Dems to retain their seats and enter into another coalition on the agreement that the referendum be scrapped.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Indeed a lot of the problems we are having now step from the lack of definition of what voting to leave would mean in practice. Cameron’s biggest failure was not to have a Royal Commission or other mechanism to produce a single version of Leave, with the referendum taking place afterwards.
Plenty of people managed to project their own views onto Brexit, from Farage and UKIP to Dan Hannan and the Conservative MEPs. The free market IEA think tank published a number of papers on how leaving the EU would work in practice, and held a competition resulting in hundreds of entries with a winner and five runners up awarded prizes. https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-prize-final-shortlisted-entries
If we had had a single Brexit option to vote for, we really wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
Not least He didn't want to settle the issue, he wanted to win a referendum. A disgraceful dereliction of duty.
Yes, I think his arrogance caught up with him, especially in the aftermath of the Scotland referendum win in 2014.
The mistakes were the lack of a specific leave option and the totally negative remain campaign - he just didn’t think we’d collectively vote to give politicians a metaphorical punch on the nose.
He could also have accepted votes at 16 and made it easier for expats in the EU, but he was just too confident in his own ability.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I think that's already been signed with the US.
Though, if the UK crashes out of the EU, airlines won't be able to travel through UK airspace to get to the US, and vice versa. The clear skies agreements are co-dependent. If the UK no-deals it will ground transatlantic routes from the US to the EU that go through UK airspace.
That will be fun.
Sucks for the EU airlines. No problem if you are flying a UK/US airline.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I think that's already been signed with the US.
Though, if the UK crashes out of the EU, airlines won't be able to travel through UK airspace to get to the US, and vice versa. The clear skies agreements are co-dependent. If the UK no-deals it will ground transatlantic routes from the US to the EU that go through UK airspace.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
The one thing I am extremely confident over is that Clear Skies will be sorted, because it isn't just a matter of the UK getting this or that product in, the worlds aviation industry would grind to a halt and in doing so the world economy.
You only have to look at when that volcano blew ash into the skies, it crippled the world flight schedules for weeks. Making the UK airports inaccessible would be that x10. There isn't the capacity to just re-route the whole flight system around it.
Tusk says the January summit May wants probably won't happen.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073605119533551621
That would appear to be that.
Indeed. I agree with Tusk. There appears to be nothing further to talk about. Mrs May needs to stay here and sort out her Brexit.
Interested to get your thoughts. As a vocal critic of May's handling of Brexit but also the ERG, do you think we should have spent the last two years (and should now spend what time is available) in preparing for no deal, not as a desirable outcome, but as a real risk?
To rephrase the question, do you think that, as big business (which incidentally pays a lot of Tory party bills) started to panic in the aftermath of 2016, we should have told them to 'get lost', as no deal was quite a possibility, or reassured them by promising that there was no question of the UK leaving naked without a deal?
I think those gunning for Trump have to be a bit careful. If after building up all the massive Russian collusion angle, the only thing they get Trump on is ordering somebody to hush up him bonking a porn star, I think it will allow Trump to do his Fake News / Bias media / Deep state routine.
That been said Mueller appears to be working his way through this and so far anybody who has got caught in his tractor beam ends up getting taken down. Although, again so far a lot of it revolves around greed of trying to avoid paying their taxes.
Mud sticks, but it seems like too much mud makes the other mud come off. I skim past the latest on what Trump has been up to. 'Lovechild with a midget dominatrix?' ok. 'combover is actually a sophisticated Russian data gathering robot?' ok. Is a single one of his supporters being turned around, or is everyone just getting angrier?
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I think that's already been signed with the US.
Though, if the UK crashes out of the EU, airlines won't be able to travel through UK airspace to get to the US, and vice versa. The clear skies agreements are co-dependent. If the UK no-deals it will ground transatlantic routes from the US to the EU that go through UK airspace.
That will be fun.
Sucks for the EU airlines. No problem if you are flying a UK/US airline.
Well, it would mean airlines would need to add around 2 hours to avoid UK airspace, and UK air traffic control.
It would also mean the end of international transfers at UK airports. But since UK airports won't be able to fly anywhere in the EU, without an interchange in the US or Asia or Africa, that might be the least of our worries.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I think that's already been signed with the US.
Though, if the UK crashes out of the EU, airlines won't be able to travel through UK airspace to get to the US, and vice versa. The clear skies agreements are co-dependent. If the UK no-deals it will ground transatlantic routes from the US to the EU that go through UK airspace.
That will be fun.
Sucks for the EU airlines. No problem if you are flying a UK/US airline.
Well, it would mean airlines would need to add around 2 hours to avoid UK airspace, and UK air traffic control.
It would also mean the end of international transfers at UK airports. But since UK airports won't be able to fly anywhere in the EU, without an interchange in the US or Asia or Africa, that might be the least of our worries.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I think that's already been signed with the US.
Though, if the UK crashes out of the EU, airlines won't be able to travel through UK airspace to get to the US, and vice versa. The clear skies agreements are co-dependent. If the UK no-deals it will ground transatlantic routes from the US to the EU that go through UK airspace.
That will be fun.
Sucks for the EU airlines. No problem if you are flying a UK/US airline.
Well, it would mean airlines would need to add around 2 hours to avoid UK airspace, and UK air traffic control.
It would also mean the end of international transfers at UK airports. But since UK airports won't be able to fly anywhere in the EU, without an interchange in the US or Asia or Africa, that might be the least of our worries.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
May has until the end of January - pass her deal or she'll be escorted out of no 10.
Indeed. And it only passes with Labour support. Ditto if she is replaced. The WA cannot pass without Labour support. And the WA must pass or else it's article 50 extension and a referendum. But no referendum possible with a tory PM. Hence the WA must pass with Labour support. Which they give in return for the promise of a 2019 GE post 29 March. That is what I foresee. Not quite predict, only a fool would predict, but foresee.
My prediction - May fails.
A cleanskin is PM.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
That’s increasingly looking like the most likely outcome.
It’s possible that a week or two of disruption to trade is unfortunately going to be required to bang heads together around the negotiating table.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
How lucky to be in Dubai after advocating Brexit. Still, if it’s the elderly Brexiteers that suffer, karma I suppose.
I’ll be spending my hard earned Dirhams in Britain over Christmas. At $1.24/£ I’ll probably be spending a few quid more than I was planning to, so doing my bit for the U.K. economy.
Be nice... some of us earn Great British Pesos!
Paging @AlastairMeeks - I think our Argentinification will continue, regardless of the ultimate Brexit outcome. We think we are rich, entitled to a certain standard of living, and the state/the rich can pay for everything.
I think we will fall a long way before most realise how far we’ve come.
The Tories and David Cameron in particular should pay a huge price for taking us to this position.
From a Labour (and a countrywide) point of view, we would've been better off with Miliband winning.
But I still think the arc towards a referendum was inevitable. Whether anyone likes it or not our EU membership was a subject which needed to be tackled at some point.
ERG as is didn't exist until 2016. It was Tory voters moving to UKIP that caused Cameron to offer the referendum.
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
Indeed a lot of the problems we are having now step from the lack of definition of what voting to leave would mean in practice. Cameron’s biggest failure was not to have a Royal Commission or other mechanism to produce a single version of Leave, with the referendum taking place afterwards.
Plenty of people managed to project their own views onto Brexit, from Farage and UKIP to Dan Hannan and the Conservative MEPs. The free market IEA think tank published a number of papers on how leaving the EU would work in practice, and held a competition resulting in hundreds of entries with a winner and five runners up awarded prizes. https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-prize-final-shortlisted-entries
If we had had a single Brexit option to vote for, we really wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
Not least He didn't want to settle the issue, he wanted to win a referendum. A disgraceful dereliction of duty.
Yes, I think his arrogance caught up with him, especially in the aftermath of the Scotland referendum win in 2014.
The mistakes were the lack of a specific leave option and the totally negative remain campaign - he just didn’t think we’d collectively vote to give politicians a metaphorical punch on the nose.
He could also have accepted votes at 16 and made it easier for expats in the EU, but he was just too confident in his own ability.
The franchise for the referendum was the same as for a GE. I think that if he’d tried to change it for the referendum, his opponents would have suggested he was trying to unfairly rig the vote in his favour.
It’s clear in the WA a minister of the Crown can amend exit day .
I'm not sure amending it "until the end of time, when the universe has imploded into a ball the size of Donald Trump's humility" really fits the spirit of the legislation.
It doesn’t , but the subsection in the WA has no time limit on amending that . Politically of course it’s the nuclear option .
The more likely outcome is May resigns if her deal is voted down and David Liddington or Hammond get an extension .
(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
That's to allow for a different exit day to be agreed in the negotiations (either by an A50 extension or otherwise), not to allow for revocation.
It’s irrelevant the WA doesn’t specify any linkage between subsection 4 and Article 50 . The politics is one thing but legally the WA and Article 50 are separate entities .
A government trying to use that power to alter exit day other than for the purposes I mentioned would surely face judicial review.
He could also have accepted votes at 16 and made it easier for expats in the EU, but he was just too confident in his own ability.
Poppycock. He simply wasn't expecting to have to campaign virtually single-handedly, with active obstruction by the Labour leadership.
Then he should have kept out of it, and not made it a referendum on the government's position. What did he expect; an A-level student could have told him how easily referendums become excuses to give the government a kicking. Of all the moans from leavers the idea that having government backing gave Remain some sort of unfair advantage in 2016 is one of the most risible. Having government on their side was a huge handicap.
Theresa May’s Allies Are Pushing For A Second Referendum To Crush A Brexiteer “Suicide Squad”
The PM comes home from Brussels to find hardcore Brexiteers threatening to bring down her government, cabinet ministers being urged to oust her, and members of her top team preparing for a “people’s vote”.
Tusk says the January summit May wants probably won't happen.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073605119533551621
That would appear to be that.
Indeed. I agree with Tusk. There appears to be nothing further to talk about. Mrs May needs to stay here and sort out her Brexit.
Interested to get your thoughts. As a vocal critic of May's handling of Brexit but also the ERG, do you think we should have spent the last two years (and should now spend what time is available) in preparing for no deal, not as a desirable outcome, but as a real risk?
To rephrase the question, do you think that, as big business (which incidentally pays a lot of Tory party bills) started to panic in the aftermath of 2016, we should have told them to 'get lost', as no deal was quite a possibility, or reassured them by promising that there was no question of the UK leaving naked without a deal?
I think the best course of action would have been to say 'As a responsible Government, we are preparing for no deal as it's a possible political scenario that is not entirely within our power to avoid. However, we will do everything within our power to secure a good deal'. Which would have been correct. Because where a deal depends on two parties, it can never be guaranteed. This strikes me as more reassuring than saying, in a Cameronesque way 'calm down dear, it will never happen' - until it does.
He could also have accepted votes at 16 and made it easier for expats in the EU, but he was just too confident in his own ability.
Poppycock. He simply wasn't expecting to have to campaign virtually single-handedly, with active obstruction by the Labour leadership.
Then he should have kept out of it, and not made it a referendum on the government's position. What did he expect; an A-level student could have told him how easily referendums become excuses to give the government a kicking. Of all the moans from leavers the idea that having government backing gave Remain some sort of unfair advantage in 2016 is one of the most risible. Having government on one side was a huge drag.
You could use that argument to prevent any referendum on any issue. Convenient if you are opposed to a decision that could only be made through one (given precedent)/
Tusk says the January summit May wants probably won't happen.
`‘we are ready to reconfirm our assurances and good will and good faith when it comes to the backstop - I have no mandate to organise any further negotiations`
twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1073605119533551621
That would appear to be that.
Indeed. I agree with Tusk. There appears to be nothing further to talk about. Mrs May needs to stay here and sort out her Brexit.
Interested to get your thoughts. As a vocal critic of May's handling of Brexit but also the ERG, do you think we should have spent the last two years (and should now spend what time is available) in preparing for no deal, not as a desirable outcome, but as a real risk?
To rephrase the question, do you think that, as big business (which incidentally pays a lot of Tory party bills) started to panic in the aftermath of 2016, we should have told them to 'get lost', as no deal was quite a possibility, or reassured them by promising that there was no question of the UK leaving naked without a deal?
I think the best course of action would have been to say 'As a responsible Government, we are preparing for no deal as it's a possible political scenario that is not entirely within our power to avoid. However, we will do everything within our power to secure a good deal'. Which would have been correct. Because where a deal depends on two parties, it can never be guaranteed. This strikes me as more reassuring than saying, in a Cameronesque way 'calm down dear, it will never happen' - until it does.
Yet above all the government back in 2016 wanted to stop the snowball of business panic starting to roll down the hill. Which isn't unreasonable. One of the considerations that leavers pontificating from the saloon bar with a pint in one hand can happily ignore, but a serving government cannot.
Do you know, I think it might have finally penetrated the infinitely thick duranium-alloy skulls of Maybunker denizens that May cannot win the Meaningful Vote.
To my mind the likeliest outcome is that May's deal will eventually pass, perhaps by means of a Labour abstention.
The only real reason for Labour not to support it is the desire to inflict as much damage on the government as possible. After three more months of this, the government may well be damaged beyond repair anyway, and if the passage of the deal also loses it the support of the DUP, so much the better for Labour.
Would Labour really want to go further, and inflict a disastrous outcome on the country, and - perhaps more to the point as far as cynics are concerned - take their share of the blame for that outcome in the eyes of the electorate?
And after all, as May's deal is largely a matter of postponing the substantive decisions about the future, if Labour did win an election in the aftermath, they would be in a position to make the real deal on their own terms after that.
In purely party-political terms, and ignoring (as they seem to do) the question of what is best for the country, Labour's calculation is tricky. If as you suggest they end up allowing the EU's deal through, they will get blamed by pro-Remain supporters for not stopping Brexit. Ditto if they somehow collude with the ERG loons in No Deal, with the added kick of the resulting job losses and disruption.
Therefore I think that the Labour line will become 'We wanted to respect the 2016 referendum result, but we weren't in charge and the Tories have screwed up so badly that we need to find a way out.'. They will do very well indeed with that message, and Corbyn will go along with it (even if he'd actually prefer to leave) because it's the inevitable endpoint of both the parliamentary and Labour support numbers. They can present a credibly united front with such a message, and get political cover for it by supporting a Revoke/Deal referendum.
Meanwhile the Tories will be engaged in a bitter civil war. What's not to like, from Labour's point of view?
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
Yes - we are off to the USA for the family holiday next year.
Not if we crash over the cliff edge and take the Clear Skies agreement with us you aren't.
I too have an American trip planned next year but am confident the Clear Skies agreement won't be a problem.
Open Skies. Although North Atlantic ATC May be a problem....
He could also have accepted votes at 16 and made it easier for expats in the EU, but he was just too confident in his own ability.
Poppycock. He simply wasn't expecting to have to campaign virtually single-handedly, with active obstruction by the Labour leadership.
Then he should have kept out of it, and not made it a referendum on the government's position. What did he expect; an A-level student could have told him how easily referendums become excuses to give the government a kicking. Of all the moans from leavers the idea that having government backing gave Remain some sort of unfair advantage in 2016 is one of the most risible. Having government on one side was a huge drag.
You could use that argument to prevent any referendum on any issue. Convenient if you are opposed to a decision that could only be made through one (given precedent)/
I said that as PM he (and the government) should have stayed neutral. Not that there should never be a referendum. Although fact remains that having this one without first defining a proposition for people to support or oppose was idiotic.
Do you know, I think it might have finally penetrated the infinitely thick duranium-alloy skulls of Maybunker denizens that May cannot win the Meaningful Vote.
Does losing the MV preclude the government from bringing forward the Implementation Bill?
He could also have accepted votes at 16 and made it easier for expats in the EU, but he was just too confident in his own ability.
Poppycock. He simply wasn't expecting to have to campaign virtually single-handedly, with active obstruction by the Labour leadership.
Then he should have kept out of it, and not made it a referendum on the government's position. What did he expect; an A-level student could have told him how easily referendums become excuses to give the government a kicking. Of all the moans from leavers the idea that having government backing gave Remain some sort of unfair advantage in 2016 is one of the most risible. Having government on one side was a huge drag.
You could use that argument to prevent any referendum on any issue. Convenient if you are opposed to a decision that could only be made through one (given precedent)/
I said that as PM he (and the government) should have stayed neutral. Not that there should never be a referendum. Although fact remains that having this one without first defining a proposition for people to support or oppose was idiotic.
The government should have no view on the biggest constitutional change in forty years? It's a view, I suppose...
Comments
The only real reason for Labour not to support it is the desire to inflict as much damage on the government as possible. After three more months of this, the government may well be damaged beyond repair anyway, and if the passage of the deal also loses it the support of the DUP, so much the better for Labour.
Would Labour really want to go further, and inflict a disastrous outcome on the country, and - perhaps more to the point as far as cynics are concerned - take their share of the blame for that outcome in the eyes of the electorate?
And after all, as May's deal is largely a matter of postponing the substantive decisions about the future, if Labour did win an election in the aftermath, they would be in a position to make the real deal on their own terms after that.
The key thing is Henry Vlll powers allow this , the Gina Miller case is about removal of rights without parliamentary approval not the maintenance of same rights .
The Supreme Court dealt with abrogation of rights , there is no abrogation if the same rights are maintained .
He did have a better option, though: decide what sort of Leave to put on the ballot paper and then stay out of the campaign.
A cleanskin is PM.
Arrangements are put in place for no deal in a much more overt way.
We leave in March with some interim arrangements for planes to fly etc in place. The Uk and EU start working on a trade deal.
She can then amend the exit day in the WA for 2200 indeed any date she likes past March 29 2019 ! MPs at a later date could just remove the WA from law and that’s it job done !
Therefore I think that the Labour line will become 'We wanted to respect the 2016 referendum result, but we weren't in charge and the Tories have screwed up so badly that we need to find a way out.'. They will do very well indeed with that message, and Corbyn will go along with it (even if he'd actually prefer to leave) because it's the inevitable endpoint of both the parliamentary and Labour support numbers. They can present a credibly united front with such a message, and get political cover for it by supporting a Revoke/Deal referendum.
Meanwhile the Tories will be engaged in a bitter civil war. What's not to like, from Labour's point of view?
The WA passes with Labour support and the price of that support is the promise of a General Election in 2019 after we have left.
It could be presented as both acting in the national interest and also in compliance with their Brexit policy, which is respect the referendum result but negotiate an FTA that is very close to Remain. The WA is compatible with that.
My point is that when this is discussed the cause and effect is usually portrayed the wrong way round. The Cash hardliners were agitating because the Tories were already losing votes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/14/theresa-may-brussels-pizza-hut?CMP=share_btn_tw
I had no idea that Amber Rudd once made a joke implying that the DSOS&ASS Boris Johnson is a rapist.
And now people are suggesting he could be her running mate.
The Tories are too dumb to live.
The more likely outcome is May resigns if her deal is voted down and David Liddington or Hammond get an extension .
And what did Gordon Brown say when The Treasury told him how great everything was? Something like 'What do you want me to do, send a fucking thank you note?'.
Plenty of people managed to project their own views onto Brexit, from Farage and UKIP to Dan Hannan and the Conservative MEPs. The free market IEA think tank published a number of papers on how leaving the EU would work in practice, and held a competition resulting in hundreds of entries with a winner and five runners up awarded prizes.
https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/brexit-prize-final-shortlisted-entries
If we had had a single Brexit option to vote for, we really wouldn’t be in the situation we are now.
It's simply not within the soul of Labour MPs to even consider throwing lifelines to Tory PMs in trouble.
But as the deadline gets closer, one would hope the real-world consequences will start to weigh more heavily in the balance.
What a great Prime Minister I would make! Vote Labour."
It's theoretically doable, but it's not a good look, now is it?
(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
That's to allow for a different exit day to be agreed in the negotiations (either by an A50 extension or otherwise), not to allow for revocation.
Which is why Cameron didn't do it.
He didn't want to settle the issue, he wanted to win a referendum. A disgraceful dereliction of duty.
The pound has yet to take on the full impact of a hard Brexit. If it does we can see the pound drop below one euro. That will put added pressure on the Government. This is a black swan event and if you read the Big Short you will understand that markets tend not to believe in black swans. When they do appear the impact is fast and dramatic.
We like many other manufacturing businesses are sanguine. As we earn a lot of overseas currency we will win from a big drop in the pound but much of this money we will need to use getting access to markets and giving pay rises to key staff.
As I have said before the more you rely on the UK and especially the UK Government for your income the worst you will find 2019.
But mostly, I suspect that by the time we get to March it might not look so much like throwing a lifeline, and more like assisting a suicide.
"Having correctly ruled out a second referendum and a General Election, and with no chance of passing her own deal through Parliament, the Prime Minister is left with only one option for which she and the Government should now robustly prepare: a World Trade deal, from March 29, 2019.
Far from the panto-dramatics language of no deals and cliff edges used by the anti-Brexit gang, a World Trade deal simply means we will continue to trade with the EU and like most other countries around the world, we will do so under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
"Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence."
That pretty much neatly explains every vocal Tory Brexit Buccaneer.
David Davis
Liam Fox
Andrea Leadsom
Andrew Bridgen
Nadine Dorries
Steve Baker
Dan Hannan
Douglas Carswell
Mark Reckless
JRM...
It’s possible that a week or two of disruption to trade is unfortunately going to be required to bang heads together around the negotiating table.
Some industries are quickly going to start suffering badly from the uncertainty, such as summer holiday bookings to Spain and Greece that usually get made in January and February.
That legislation can be amended.
HTH.
The mistakes were the lack of a specific leave option and the totally negative remain campaign - he just didn’t think we’d collectively vote to give politicians a metaphorical punch on the nose.
http://2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BetterDeal.pdf
It shouldn't bother the Remainers or business people.
It could be used to make up the shortfall caused by the British exit.
It might persuade more Leavers to take their holidays in Turkey where they'll discover nice people.
Those that still don't fancy the Turks can holiday in Grimsby......
Not many downsides really.
Obviously if that is not true then it opens up other outcomes including yours.
But if that is correct (and I think it is) and if it is also correct to discount a referendum (and I really can't see it) then the model does point very strongly to the one conclusion - Labour allow the WA to pass and in return get the promise of a GE in say May 2019.
Quite a week she's having.
It's possible that actions the government wants to take might need legislation but leaving the EU without a negotiated WA itself has already been sufficiently authorised by parliament.
That been said Mueller appears to be working his way through this and so far anybody who has got caught in his tractor beam ends up getting taken down. Although, again so far a lot of it revolves around greed of trying to avoid paying their taxes.
That will be fun.
You only have to look at when that volcano blew ash into the skies, it crippled the world flight schedules for weeks. Making the UK airports inaccessible would be that x10. There isn't the capacity to just re-route the whole flight system around it.
It would also mean the end of international transfers at UK airports. But since UK airports won't be able to fly anywhere in the EU, without an interchange in the US or Asia or Africa, that might be the least of our worries.
Paging @AlastairMeeks - I think our Argentinification will continue, regardless of the ultimate Brexit outcome. We think we are rich, entitled to a certain standard of living, and the state/the rich can pay for everything.
I think we will fall a long way before most realise how far we’ve come.
The PM comes home from Brussels to find hardcore Brexiteers threatening to bring down her government, cabinet ministers being urged to oust her, and members of her top team preparing for a “people’s vote”.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/theresa-mays-allies-second-referendum-brexiteer-suicide
So Corbyn will probably do something different!